FACTS OF THE CASE

1. Kanagavalliammal (Respondent No.2) purchased the suit property under a sale deed
dated (4/3/1957) that she was the absolute owner of the suit property and had
mortgaged it in favour of appellant's sister (T.N. Latha) on (30/6/1983); that
Kanagavalliammal (Respondent No.2) sold the suit property in favour of the
Appellant (T.G. Ashok Kumar) under a sale deed dated (11/4/1990) and delivered
possession thereof to him in pursuance of the sale.
2. Despite the fact that the suit property was the second respondent's self-acquired
property, Govindammal (Respondent No.1), her step-daughter, filed a collusive suit
against the second respondent in OS No. 8/1985 on the file of the Sub-ordinate Judge,
Tiruvallur, alleging that the suit property and several other properties belonged to her
father, Ekambara Reddy and that she and Kanagavalliammal (Respondent No.2), each
had a half share in those properties
3. The Appellant is a bona fide purchaser of the suit property from Kanagavalliammal
(Respondent No.2) and was unaware of the pendency of the said suit for partition in
O.S. No.8/1985; that the said suit for partition filed by Govindammal (Respondent
No.1) was subsequently decreed by preliminary decree dated (17/3/1994) holding that
the Respondent No.1 was entitled to half share in the properties described as Items 1
to 6 in the partition suit schedule; and that Govindammal (Respondent No.1) was
entitled to half share in the properties
4. Appellant was adversely affected for his right and title to the suit property and
therefore it became necessary for him to file a suit for declaration of his right and title
to the suit property with a consequential permanent injunction.
5. Govindammal (Respondent No.1) objected to the complaint, claiming that the
Appellant had purchased the suit property while her partition suit was pending, and
that as a purchaser pendente lite, the sale in his favour was barred by the law of lis
pendens, and therefore he had no claim to the suit property. She claimed that the suit
property was purchased in the name of Kanagavalliammal (Respondent No.2) by her
father, and that it was not the second respondent's self-acquired property.
6. The appellant's lawsuit was dismissed by the trial court on 6.7.2005. It was held that
the suit property was not the second respondent's(Kanagavalliammal) self-acquired
property, and that there was no collusion between the first and second respondents;
 and that the appellant had purchased the suit property under a sale dated 11.4.1990
during the pendency of the first respondent's(Govindammal) suit for partition (OS
No.8/1985) against the second respondent(Kanagavalliammal), and that the sale in his
favour was hit by the doctrine of lis pendens, and that the appellant did not get relief
of declaration and injunction sought to him
7. The appeal filed by the Appellant (T.G. Ashok Kumar) was dismissed by the first
appellate court by judgment and decree dated 26.3.2008. The second appeal filed by
the appellant was dismissed by the High Court by the impugned judgment dated
1.9.2009 by holding that appellant was a pendente lite purchaser, attracting the
doctrine of Lis pendens under Section 52 of Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (`Act' for
short) and therefore the courts below were justified in ignoring the purchase by
appellant. Feeling aggrieved the Appellant filed the present appeal.