Yes, and this is a critically important protection for successful litigants in Mumbai property disputes, since without it, a losing party could simply sell the property to a third party to frustrate enforcement of the decree against them. Under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, the doctrine of lis pendens ensures that any transfer of property made during the pendency of a suit does not affect the rights ultimately determined by the court's decree, meaning a subsequent purchaser who buys disputed property while litigation is ongoing takes it subject to whatever the court finally decides, and the decree can be executed against them just as it could against the original defendant.

This principle applies with equal force at the execution stage under Order 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which governs execution of decrees. Where a decree-holder seeks to execute a decree for possession or partition of immovable property, and finds that the judgment-debtor has since sold the property to a third party, the decree-holder can proceed with execution against the current possessor if that transfer occurred during the pendency of the suit, since the third party's rights are bound by lis pendens and cannot defeat the decree. The execution court will typically issue notice to the subsequent purchaser, giving them an opportunity to raise any genuine objections, but mere purchase during litigation pendency does not itself provide a valid defence against execution.

Where the transfer occurred before the suit was even filed, or in genuine ignorance and without any element of lis pendens applying, the situation becomes more nuanced, and the subsequent purchaser may have stronger grounds to resist execution or to be treated as a bona fide third party requiring separate proceedings to establish the decree's applicability to them. Courts examine the timing of the transfer relative to the suit's institution very carefully in such disputes, since this timing is often determinative of whether the decree can be directly executed or whether fresh proceedings are needed.

Decree-holders should also be aware of the importance of formally registering the pendency of their suit wherever possible, and promptly initiating execution proceedings once a decree is obtained, since delay in execution can sometimes complicate matters if additional transfers or complications arise on the ground during the interim period. Under Order 21 Rule 97 and related provisions, where resistance to execution comes from a person claiming independent rights, the court is empowered to adjudicate that specific objection before proceeding further with execution.

Given how execution against subsequent purchasers involves careful application of lis pendens principles and procedural execution law, professional guidance ensures your decree is actually enforced rather than becoming a hollow victory. Reach out via Aapka Legal Advice for assistance in executing your Mumbai property decree against any subsequent purchasers. The Top Property Lawyers in Mumbai team has successfully enforced decrees against third-party purchasers across Mumbai's civil courts, supported by a panel of retired judges and criminal lawyers where fraudulent transfers are used to evade execution. If you've secured a favourable decree in Mumbai but the property has since been sold, prompt execution proceedings under Order 21 CPC remain your effective path to actual enforcement.