Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Court | Supreme Court of India |
| Case Number | C.A. No.-014761-014761 – 2025 |
| Diary Number | 9400/2019 |
| Judge Name | HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE J.B. PARDIWALA |
| Bench | HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE J.B. PARDIWALA; HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K.V. VISWANATHAN |
| Precedent Value | Binding authority |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms existing doctrine of lis pendens and execution scheme under CPC; no new precedent overturned |
| Type of Law | Execution of decrees—Order XXI CPC; Transfer of Property Act (Section 52) |
| Questions of Law |
|
| Ratio Decidendi |
|
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court |
|
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
The Bank obtained an ex parte foreclosure decree (1984) over mortgaged land. Judgment-debtor sold a 24-kanal portion in two tranches (1985) to respondent nos. 1 & 2. The Bank executed the decree by attachment (Oct 1985) and auction (June 1988), confirmed (Aug 1988), and possession given to the appellants (sons of another judgment-debtor) in June 1989. Respondent nos. 1 & 2 filed a separate suit (July 1989) for declaration of title and injunction, which was upheld by lower courts. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts |
| Follows | M/s Siddamsetty Infra Projects v. Katta Sujatha Reddy (2024 INSC 861) |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reaffirms that transfers pendente lite are bound by lis pendens (Section 52 TPA), regardless of notice or bona fides.
- Confirms transferees pendente lite are “representatives” under Section 47 CPC and cannot file separate suits to challenge execution sales.
- Underscores that execution remedies under Order XXI Rules 89–92 and 99–104 are exclusive and strictly time-bound (30 days for Rule 99; 60 days for Rule 89).
- Clarifies Rule 58 objections to attachment are only maintainable before sale confirmation; thereafter only separate suit under Rule 92(4) for bona fide third parties.
- Highlights narrow window for third parties to sue post-confirmation only if wholly excluded from execution remedies and not hit by Section 47.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- Section 52 TPA: bars alienation (direct or partial) of immovable property during pendency of any suit “directly and specifically in question,” binding even bona fide transferees.
-
Order XXI CPC remedies:
- Rule 58: summary adjudication of attachment objections before sale confirmation; barred after sale.
- Rule 89: set aside sale on deposit (5% bid + decretal amount) within 60 days.
- Rule 90: set aside sale for material irregularity/fraud causing substantial injury; 60-day limit; explanation excludes mere attachment defects without injury.
- Rule 92: confirmation or setting aside (sub-rules 1–2); bar on separate suits (sub-rule 3); bona fide third-party suit permitted (sub-rule 4–5).
- Rules 99–104: dispossessed third parties may complain (99–100); executing court adjudicates rights (101) with finality (104); transferees pendente lite barred (102); orders deemed decrees (103).
- Section 47 CPC bars separate suits by parties or their representatives on execution, reinforcing exclusive execution remedies.
- Transferees pendente lite: not third parties, bound by lis pendens, Section 47, and Rule 102; no relief in separate suit or Rule 99 except monetary recovery in execution.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner (Appellants — Auction Purchasers)
- Transfer by judgment-debtor after decree was final violates Section 52 lis pendens.
- Transferees pendente lite derive only derivative title; cannot step into vendor’s rights.
- Separate suit barred by Section 47 CPC and Order XXI Rules 99–103 CPC; executing court has exclusive jurisdiction.
- Fraud/irregularity in sale limited to Rule 90 remedy (time-barred); inadequate price alone no ground.
- Relief only recovery of money under execution, not declaration of title.
Respondents 1 & 2
- Purchases pre-attachment; bona fide purchasers without notice; vendors had subsisting right to sell.
- Auction conducted in camera, undervalued, collusive (fraud), vitiates confirmation.
- Separate suit maintainable under Rule 92(4) as bona fide third parties; Section 47 inapplicable.
- Similar to T. Vijendradas: judgment-debtor’s decree was nullity as notice defective, non-impleadment of actual owner.
Factual Background
Duli Chand mortgaged 116 kanals in 1970 for a tractor loan from the Bank. The Bank sued (1982), obtained an ex-parte decree (1984) for ₹22,753, and executed it by attachment (Oct 1985). Respondent 1 purchased 17 kanals (May 1985) and respondent 2 an additional 7.5 kanals (June 1985) from judgment-debtor 3. The Bank auctioned entire mortgaged land (June 1988), confirming sale to appellants (Aug 1988). Possession delivered (June 1989). Respondents 1 & 2, denied access thereafter, filed Suit 353/1989 for declaration of title and injunction. Trial, appellate and High Courts upheld their suit.
Statutory Analysis
- Transfer of Property Act Section 52: bars alienation or dealing with property during pendency of any suit “directly and specifically in question,” until final decree and its satisfaction. Doctrine of lis pendens binds pendente lite transferees, irrespective of notice or bona fides.
- CPC Order XXI:
- Rule 58: summary adjudication of claims/objections to attachment before sale confirmation; proviso (a) bars claims post-sale confirmation; proviso (b) bars undue delay.
- Rule 89: set aside sale on deposit (5% purchase money + decretal amount) within 60 days.
- Rule 90: set aside sale for material irregularity/fraud in conducting sale, if substantial injury proved; 60-day limit; sub-rule (3) bars belated grounds. Explanation excludes mere attachment defects without injury.
- Rule 92: confirmation or setting aside (sub-rules 1–2); bar on separate suits (sub-rule 3); bona fide third-party suit permitted (sub-rules 4–5).
- Rule 99–104: dispossessed persons (other than judgment-debtor) may complain (99–100); executing court adjudicates all “questions” (101); transferees pendente lite barred (102); orders deemed decrees (103); subject to pending suit protecting pre-commencement rights (104).
- CPC Section 47: all execution disputes between parties or their representatives must be decided in execution proceedings, “not by a separate suit.”
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed
- 🔄 Conflicting Decisions on Order XXI Rule 97