Execution remains subject to appeal where decree-holder obtains property exceeding the decretal amount.

The appellants, Ajay Gupta and Sangeeta Gupta, and the respondents, Prakash Chand Gupta and Seema Gupta, are family members disputing rights in property bearing No. A-23, Ganesh Nagar, Delhi.

Following the death of the original owner, K.C. Gupta, his Will allegedly bequeathed the First Floor and roof rights of the Third Floor to the appellants and other portions to the respondents.

The parties subsequently entered into arrangements concerning transfer of the appellants’ property rights for a total consideration stated to be Rs.62,00,000, against which the appellants admitted receiving Rs.41,00,000.

The respondents instituted a recovery suit, which was decreed under Order XII Rule 6 CPC for Rs.43,48,000 with interest at 9% per annum.

During execution, the appellants failed to comply with the conditional stay requiring deposit of the decretal amount, and ultimately handed over possession of the First Floor and roof rights of the Third Floor to the respondents on 6 May 2024.

The Executing Court recorded satisfaction of the decree on 8 May 2024, and the National Lok Adalat recorded that the decree stood satisfied on 11 May 2024.

In the pending appeal, the appellants sought an order under Section 151 CPC restraining the respondents from creating third-party rights in the property, contending that the respondents had obtained property valued at approximately Rs.62,00,000 while the decretal claim was based on a lesser amount and the balance consideration remained unresolved.

Whether, notwithstanding satisfaction of the decree in execution, the appellants had made out a prima facie case for preservation of the property pending determination of the appeal.

Whether the respondents should be restrained under Section 151 CPC from creating third-party rights in the First Floor and roof rights of the Third Floor during the pendency of the appeal.

The Court applied Section 151 CPC, which preserves the inherent powers of the civil court to pass orders necessary to secure the ends of justice and prevent abuse of process.

It also considered the effect of an execution proceeding being recorded as satisfied while the decree remains under challenge in appeal, holding that such satisfaction may remain subject to the outcome of the appeal where execution has resulted in the transfer of property whose value may exceed the decretal amount.

The Court applied the established interim-relief principles of prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable loss or injury.

The Court noted that the respondents had obtained possession of the property pursuant to execution of the decree, although the property allegedly represented the subject matter of an alternative arrangement and was valued at approximately Rs.62,00,000, whereas the decree was for recovery of Rs.43,48,000 with interest.

Since the appellants asserted that Rs.21,00,000 remained payable under the parties’ transaction and that the respondents had received property worth more than the decretal amount, the Court found an arguable and prima facie case requiring preservation of the existing position.

It held that allowing alienation during the appeal could prejudice the appellants and cause irreparable injury by complicating or defeating effective appellate relief.

The balance of convenience therefore favoured maintaining the property in its present condition, even though the execution proceedings had formally been satisfied.

Exercising its inherent jurisdiction under Section 151 CPC, the Court restrained the respondents from creating any third-party rights in the First Floor and roof rights of the Third Floor of property No. A-23, Ganesh Nagar, Delhi, until disposal of the appeal.

The application, CM APPL. 54761/2026, was accordingly allowed and disposed of.