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 |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms the doctrine of lis pendens and limits separate-suit challenges in execution proceedings |
| Type of Law | Civil Procedure (execution of decree) & Transfer of Property |
| Questions of Law |
|
| Ratio Decidendi |
|
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court | Statutory interpretation of Section 52 TPA (lis pendens); CPC Order XXI rules 58, 89–92, 99–104; amendments by 1929 & 1976 Acts; Law Commission reports (14th, 27th, 54th); doctrine that executing courts must adjudicate title, possession, fraud, irregularity in dedicated summary proceedings; limits on separate suits; conflict resolution between execution remedies and collateral litigation. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | A bank obtained an ex parte decree for money and foreclosure against mortgaged land. During decree execution, two purchasers acquired portions from a judgment-debtor before and after attachment (24 K-11 M). Auction sold the entire mortgaged land to the debtor’s sons, possession delivered in 1989. The purchasers sued to declare the sale void and recover possession. Lower courts upheld their suit. The Supreme Court examined lis pendens, Order XXI and Section 47 CPC bars. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All executing courts, subordinate courts (on lis pendens & execution remedies) |
| Persuasive For | High Courts on Order XXI execution law, lis pendens scope |
| Follows | Precedents such as Celir LLP, Gian Singh, T. Vijendradas regarding lis pendens & collateral-suit limitations |
| Conflicts With | Earlier High Court decisions limiting execution court’s title-adjudication power; resolves split on scope of Rules 97/99 CPC |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Section 52 TPA applies even in non-contested or ex parte suits; all pendente lite transfers bind transferees, irrespective of notice or innocence.
- Representatives of a judgment-debtor’s transferee are barred from collateral-suit relief by Section 47 CPC and Order XXI CPC (Rules 89–92, 99–104).
- Execution-sale challenges must use Order XXI remedies within strict limitation (Rules 89/90 via Art 127; Rule 99 via Art 128). Collateral suits on those grounds are impermissible.
- Only “third parties” (non-party, non-representative, non-pendente lite transferees) may file post-confirmation suits under Rule 92(4) CPC.
- Execution courts must fully determine title, fraud, irregularity and possessory claims without pushing parties to separate suits; orders under Rule 98/100/101 are deemed decrees.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- Lis Pendens (Section 52 TPA): Transfers pendente lite are barred if any right to the immovable property is “directly and specifically in question,” regardless of notice or bona fides.
- Execution-Sale Remedies (Order XXI CPC):
- Rule 89: Set-aside sale on deposit of purchase-money & decretal amount.
- Rule 90: Set-aside sale for material fraud/irregularity causing substantial injury; defects in attachment are only grounds when accompanied by injury.
- Rule 92: Confirmation of sale final unless applications under Rules 89–91 invoked; collateral suits barred (sub-rule 3), but third-party title suits allowed post-confirmation (sub-rule 4).
- Rule 99: Dispossessed persons (other than judgment-debtor) may apply to enforce possessory rights; but transferees pendente lite barred by Rule 102.
- Section 47 CPC: Bars separate suits relating to execution, discharge or satisfaction of a decree by parties or their representatives; only collateral jurisdiction is via dedicated execution-applications.
- Conclusion: Pendente lite transferees have no recourse except to acquiesce or use Order XXI remedies in time; they cannot bypass statutory bars via collateral litigation.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioners (Appellants – Auction-purchasers):
- The judgment-debtor’s transfer after final decree is void by lis pendens (Section 52 TPA).
- Purchasers knew of the auction and could have used Rules 89/90 CPC; separate suit is barred by Section 47 CPC and Order XXI CPC.
- No fraud was pleaded in timely manner; no “saleable interest” objection under Rule 90.
Respondents (Purchasers from the Debtor):
- Bona fide vendees with mutation and no-encumbrance certificates; unaware of auction.
- Sale illegally conducted: in-camera bidding, undervaluation, debtor’s participation via sons.
- Separate suit maintainable as “third parties” (Rule 92(4)), not bound by lis pendens or Section 47 CPC; fraud vitiates everything.
Factual Background
A bank secured a loan by mortgage (1970) and obtained a money-decree with foreclosure (1984). Two purchasers acquired portions of the mortgaged land from a judgment-debtor in 1985; property attached in execution (1985) and auctioned (1988) to the debtor’s sons, confirmed in 1989. Aggrieved vendees sued to void the sale and recover possession; lower courts upheld their suit. The Supreme Court examined lis pendens, Section 47 CPC and Order XXI CPC bars to collateral suits in execution.
Statutory Analysis
- Transfer of Property Act 1882, Section 52: Bars transfers pending suit in which rights to immovable property are directly in question until satisfaction of final decree.
- CPC Section 47: Execution court exclusive forum for disputes on execution, discharge or satisfaction of decree by parties/their representatives; collateral suits barred.
- Order XXI CPC:
- Rules 58–60: Objections/claims to attachment decided summarily; suit only if attachment precedes sale.
- Rules 89–92: Remedies for setting aside sale (deposit, fraud/irregularity, separate suit by third parties).
- Rules 99–104: Dispossession remedies (possession-orders by execution court, transmutes to decree, suit options only in narrow cases).
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – Reaffirms lis pendens (Section 52 TPA) and execution remedies doctrines.
- 🔄 Conflicting Decisions – Resolves splits on execute-court title-adjudication under Order XXI Rules 97/99 CPC.