New Delhi (ABC Live): In Indian civil litigation, a decree rarely ends a dispute. Instead, execution proceedings often begin the real conflict. Parties frequently derail enforcement through post-decree property transfers, collateral civil suits, and equity-based objections. As a result, enforceability—rather than adjudication—becomes the real test of justice.

Against this backdrop, the Supreme Court in Danesh Singh & Ors. v. Har Pyari (Dead) through LRs & Ors. (2025 INSC 1434) stepped in decisively. In doing so, the Court clarified how lis pendens operates during the execution of decrees. Most importantly, it reaffirmed a basic principle: execution continues adjudication; it does not restart it.

What is lis pendens — and why execution depends on it

The doctrine of lis pendens, codified in Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, rests on a clear public-policy rule. Simply put, a party cannot transfer property under litigation in a way that defeats the court’s final decision.

Crucially, the statute defines pendency broadly. It runs from the filing of the plaint and continues until the decree stands fully satisfied or discharged. Therefore, lis pendens does not stop with judgment. Instead, it follows the decree into execution.

The dispute: how post-decree transfers blocked execution

In the present case, judgment-debtor heirs sold mortgaged agricultural land after the court passed a decree but before execution was concluded. Subsequently, the bank initiated execution and auctioned the same land.

The purchasers claimed good faith. In support, they relied on mutation entries, encumbrance certificates, and an alleged lack of notice. However, rather than raising objections before the executing court, they filed a fresh civil suit to cancel the auction sale. Initially, lower courts accepted this approach. Ultimately, the Supreme Court rejected it.

Why money decrees do not escape lis pendens

Trial courts often assume that lis pendens applies only to property suits. In contrast, the Supreme Court rejected this narrow view. When a plaint identifies immovable property as security or as the means of recovery, rights in that property come directly into question.

Accordingly, Section 52 can apply even when the decree appears to be a money decree. Otherwise, judgment-debtors could drain assets during litigation and render execution meaningless. For this reason, the Court treated substance as more important than form.

Good faith does not defeat public policy

The Court delivered a firm message on equity. Claims of good faith, lack of notice, mutation entries, or revenue records do not override lis pendens. In fact, once Section 52 applies, such factors lose legal relevance.

Because of this, a transferee takes property subject to the outcome of litigation and execution. In short, equity cannot dilute a statutory bar grounded in public policy.

Execution is a closed system, not a second lawsuit

The judgment strongly reinforces Section 47 CPC and Order XXI CPC as a complete execution code. Consequently, when parties or their representatives raise disputes about execution, sale, or satisfaction, the executing court must decide them.

Therefore, litigants cannot use separate civil suits to bypass execution remedies or limitation periods. If courts allowed such suits, execution would never reach finality.

Fraud allegations require discipline, not slogans

Execution auctions can involve serious flaws. At the same time, the Court carefully separated procedural irregularity from jurisdictional nullity. As a result, not every defect invalidates a sale.

Importantly, courts must insist on strict pleadings. A party alleging fraud must plead specific facts, frame issues, and prove them at trial. Otherwise, late-stage allegations would reopen settled execution outcomes.

Rule 99 CPC: when dispossession narrows remedies

Once execution causes dispossession, the CPC provides a direct remedy under Order XXI Rule 99. Along with Rules 100 and 101, this provision forms a structured scheme for resolving possession disputes.

Accordingly, litigants cannot treat Rule 99 as optional where the scheme bars a separate suit. In the absence of such discipline, execution would never achieve closure.

Comparative tables: before and after the ruling

Table 1: Lis pendens — before vs after the Supreme Court ruling

Table 2: Pendente lite purchaser — rights and limits

Table 3: Execution remedies vs civil suit — what to file

Table 4: Fraud in execution — what courts should accept vs reject

Table 5: Rule 99 CPC — dispossession and remedy discipline

Why this ruling matters system-wide

• First, execution regains force as courts give real effect to decrees.
• Second, auction confidence improves because collateral suits lose traction.
• Finally, post-decree manipulation declines as insider transfers fail.

Verified Sources

• Supreme Court of India, Danesh Singh & Ors. v. Har Pyari (Dead) through LRs & Ors., 2025 INSC 1434 (PDF):
  https://www.livelaw.in/pdf_upload/940020192025-12-15-641117.pdf
• ABC Live (Internal): Ramesh Chand vs Suresh Chand — Will Disputes:
  https://abclive.in/2025/09/08/ramesh-chand-vs-suresh-chand-will-disputes/

FAQ

1) Does a lis pendens end once the court passes a decree?

No. Section 52 continues until full satisfaction or discharge of the decree. Therefore, lis pendens can operate through the execution phase.

2) Can a bona fide purchaser without notice defeat lis pendens?

Usually, no. Because lis pendens rests on public policy, notice and good faith do not stop the transferee from being bound by the execution result.

3) After confirmation of an execution auction, can a separate civil suit challenge the sale?

When Section 47 CPC applies to parties or their representatives, execution-related disputes should be raised before the executing court through Order XXI remedies. Collateral suits undermine finality.