Inside Court No. 3 of the Supreme Court, the matter felt less like a dry property dispute and more like a story stretched across generations. On one side were auction purchasers who bought land through court sale. On the other, a husband and wife who had purchased portions of the same land years earlier, believing everything was clean and clear.
On Monday, the Supreme Court finally settled this long-running Faridabad land battle, laying down a clear message: buying property while a court case is alive is always a gamble.
Background
The case traces its roots back to 1970, when a farmer mortgaged over 116 kanals of land to a bank for a tractor loan. The loan went unpaid. By 1982, the bank filed a recovery suit.
An ex-parte decree followed in 1984. But before the bank moved fully to execute that decree, portions of the mortgaged land-about 24 kanals-were sold to a husband and wife through registered sale deeds. They even got their names entered in revenue records and later mortgaged part of the land again for a separate loan.
Meanwhile, the bank pressed ahead with execution. The entire mortgaged land was auctioned in 1988. Sons of one of the judgment-debtors emerged as the highest bidders. Possession followed.
When the earlier purchasers were stopped from accessing the land, they went to civil court, claiming the auction-at least as far as their land was concerned-was illegal.
Court’s Observations
The Bench, led by Justice J.B. Pardiwala, spent considerable time unpacking the sequence of events. At the heart of the matter was a simple but uncomfortable question: can someone buy land safely when a court case over that land is already pending?
Answering this, the Court relied on the doctrine of lis pendens, which essentially means that any property transaction during an ongoing case remains subject to the final outcome.
“The doctrine,” the Bench observed, “is based on public policy and applies regardless of whether the purchaser had notice of the pending proceedings.”
Read also:- Supreme Court Reserves Verdict on Karnataka Land Acquisition Dispute Involving S.V. Global Mill
The Court made it clear that even though the bank’s suit was for recovery of money, the mortgage and the prayer for sale brought the land directly into dispute. As a result, the buyers stepped into the shoes of the original owner and had to accept the risks attached.
Importantly, the Bench also corrected the trial court’s factual mistake, noting that both sale deeds were executed after the bank’s suit had already begun.
Decision
Allowing the appeal, the Supreme Court held that the purchasers were pendente lite transferees and bound by the outcome of the bank’s recovery proceedings. Their claim that they were bona fide buyers without notice could not override the law.
Read also:- Delhi High Court Upholds Bata’s Exclusive Rights Over 'POWER' Mark, Restrains Use of 'POWER FLE
With this finding, the Court set aside the judgments that had favoured the purchasers and upheld the validity of the auction sale conducted in execution of the bank’s decree.
Case Title: Danesh Singh & Ors. v. Har Pyari (Dead) Through LRs & Ors.
Case No.: Civil Appeal No. 14761 of 2025 (arising out of SLP (C) No. 14461 of 2019)
Case Type: Civil Appeal (Property / Execution & Auction Sale Dispute)
Decision Date: 2025
