Lis pendens applies to co-operative society proceedings, making a later mortgage subject to rights ined in the pending dispute.

Proceedings under Section 51 of the Madras Co-operative Societies Act, 1932 were treated as a substitute for a civil suit, so the Registrar and the arbitrator were regarded as a court for the purposes of the doctrine of lis pendens under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act. The term "order" in Section 52 was read broadly to include the statutory decision made in those proceedings. Because the mortgage was taken after the dispute had already been referred and the property was directly in issue, the transfer remained subject to the rights determined in the pending proceedings, and the later alienation could not prevail. The plaintiff's mortgage was therefore ineffective against the rights declared in the Registrar's decision and the arbitrator's award.

---

---

Issues: Whether proceedings under Section 51 of the Madras Co-operative Societies Act, 1932 before the Registrar and the arbitrator are proceedings in a court so that the doctrine of lis pendens under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act applies to a mortgage executed during their pendency, and whether the subsequent alienation by the mortgagor can prevail over the rights declared in those proceedings.

Analysis: The reference to the Registrar under Section 51(1)(b) and the further disposal by an arbitrator under Section 51(2)(c) were treated as a substitute for a civil suit. The Registrar and the arbitrator were held to be a court for the purpose of Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act. The expression "order" in Section 52 was read broadly enough to cover the decision made in those proceedings. Since the plaintiff took the mortgage after the dispute had already been referred and the property was directly in question, the transfer was subject to the rights determined in the statutory proceedings, and the final decision bound the plaintiff.

Conclusion: The doctrine of lis pendens applied, and the plaintiff's mortgage could not override the rights created by the Registrar's decision and the arbitrator's award. The suit was rightly dismissed.

---