Lis pendens protects specific performance decrees against later transfers and later decrees based on those transfers.

A decree for specific performance remains executable even where the property is later transferred during the pendency of the suit, because a pendente lite transfer is subject to the doctrine of lis pendens and cannot defeat rights declared by the earlier decree. The executing court must give effect to the decree under execution and cannot decline enforcement on the basis of a later sale or a later decree obtained by transferees deriving title from that non est transfer. On that basis, refusal to execute the specific performance decree was erroneous.

---

---

Issues: Whether the decree for specific performance in favour of the decree-holder was executable despite a subsequent transfer pendente lite and a later decree obtained by the transferees.

Analysis: The suit for specific performance was instituted on the basis of an earlier agreement of sale, and the subsequent sale in favour of the third parties was effected during the pendency of that suit. A transfer made during the pendency of litigation is hit by the doctrine of lis pendens and does not defeat the rights declared by the earlier decree. The executing court is bound by the decree under execution and cannot refuse execution on the basis of a later transaction or a later decree founded on a transfer that is non est in law.

Conclusion: The decree in the specific performance suit was executable, and the refusal to execute it was erroneous.

---