Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
VIKRAM NATH, SANDEEP MEHTA, JJ.
Tahir V. Isani – Appellant
Versus
Madan Waman Chodankar (Since Deceased) Now through His Legal Representatives and Others – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 6391 of 2025 [Arising Out of SLP (C) No. 15167 of 2022]
Decided On : 06-05-2025
Certainly. Here's a summary of the key legal principles and findings from the provided document:
The Court emphasized that a transferee who purchases property from a third party, not a party to the original suit, retains the right to object to the execution of a decree under Order XXI Rules 97 and 101 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC). This is because such a transferee is not protected by the bar of Rule 102, which applies only to transferees pendente lite who trace their title directly from the judgment debtor during the pendency of the suit (!) (!) .
The doctrine of lis pendens, as embedded in the Transfer of Property Act, ensures finality in legal proceedings by binding not only the parties involved but also those who acquire rights under them during the pendency of a suit. However, this doctrine does not extend to third-party transferees who are not directly linked to the judgment debtor, especially if they purchased the property from a non-party to the suit (!) (!) .
The scheme of Rule 102 of Order XXI aims to prevent perpetual litigation by restricting the rights of transferees pendente lite to obstruct or resist execution, thereby safeguarding the finality of judicial decisions. It explicitly excludes such transferees from the protections granted under Rules 98 and 100 (!) (!) .
The Court clarified that the applicability of Rule 102 is conditional upon certain criteria: there must be a decree for possession, resistance or obstruction must be made by a transferee who traces their title from the judgment debtor, and the transfer must occur during the pendency of the suit. If any of these conditions are not met, the bar of Rule 102 does not apply, and the transferee can raise objections under Rules 97 and 101 (!) (!) .
It was held that a bona fide purchaser from a third party, who has acquired ownership rights from the original owner or a non-party to the suit, is entitled to raise objections to execution proceedings, even if the transfer occurred during the pendency of the litigation. Such a purchaser is not a transferee pendente lite of the judgment debtor (!) .
The Court stressed the importance of procedural diligence, noting that delays in raising objections or filing applications after a significant period are viewed with suspicion and may be deemed mala fide. The timing and manner of raising objections are crucial in assessing their validity (!) .
The Court directed the executing court to proceed with the pending objections, conclude the inquiry, and decide on the merits without influence from prior observations. This underscores the principle that objections based on ownership rights from a bona fide purchaser are valid and must be adjudicated fairly (!) (!) .
In summary, the legal framework prioritizes finality and fairness, allowing bona fide third-party purchasers to contest execution proceedings and emphasizing that protections under Rule 102 are limited to transferees who trace their rights directly from the judgment debtor during the pendency of the suit.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual background regarding property ownership and legal proceedings. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 2. court observations on lower court proceedings. (Para 5 , 8) |
| 3. arguments from both sides regarding rights under existing laws. (Para 6 , 7) |
| 4. significance of rule 102 of order xxi cpc regarding decree enforcement. (Para 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 5. court's reasoning on applicability of rule 102 to the parties involved. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 6. conclusion directing the executing court to proceed with the case. (Para 16 , 17 , 18) |
ORDER :
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal assails the correctness of judgment and order dated 25th July, 2022, passed by the High Court of Bombay at Goa1 [Hereinafter, referred to as ‘High Court’] in Writ Petition No. 86 of 2022, whereby the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition, and after setting aside the order dated 17th September, 2021, passed by the Executing Court, allowed the application Ext.D-100 dated 22nd October, 2019, and thereby discontinued the enquiry under Order XXI Rules 97 and 101 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.2 [In short “CPC”] The above impugned order was passed placing reliance upon the provisions contained in Order XXI Rule 102 of the CPC.
3. Relevant facts necessary for adjudication of the present appeal are as under:
3.2 A part of the aforesaid property on the ground floor, measuring 123 square meters with plinth area and approximately 89.78 square meters area of building, was leased out on rent to Madan Waman Chodankar (respondent no. 1), vide deed dated 22nd February, 1977.
3.3 Later on, respondent no. 1 entered into a partnership on 13th March, 1977 with Dyaneshwar Keshav Malik and others (‘Maliks’) for setting up a hardware business and other allied products. The business of the said firm was to be carried out from a portion of the aforesaid leased premises. However, the tenancy as per the partnership was to continue with respondent no. 1.
3.4 The original owner, Mrs. Misquita, vide registered sale deed dated 16th January, 1988, sold the entire property to M/s. Rizvi Estate and Hotels Pvt. Ltd. Thereafter, an agreement was executed between the purchaser, M/s. Rizvi Estate and Hotels Pvt. Ltd and the Maliks (sub- lessee) for surrendering the possession in order to enable the purchaser to demolish the building, construct a new multi-storied building and thereafter provide space to the sub-lessee upon construction of the new building and in the meantime provide alternate space to the sub- lessee. In the said document of 16th April, 1988 respondent no. 1 was a confirming party.
3.5 Respondent no. 1 filed a Regular Civil Suit No. 112/88/C for injunction against M/s. Rizvi Estate and Hotels Pvt. Ltd. as they sought to demolish portion of the building apparently in the light of the agreement dated 16th April, 1988. In 1989, M/s. Rizvi Estate and Hotels Pvt. Ltd. preferred an application for eviction of respondent no. 1 before the Court of Rent Controller being Rent Case No. 17 of 1989 alleging that there has been sub-letting by respondent no. 1 to Maliks, which was contrary to the lease deed dated 22nd February, 1977.
3.6 In 1996, respondent no. 1 filed a Special Civil Suit No. 97/1996/B against Maliks for dissolution of partnership, recovery of profit and ejectment. The written statement filed by Maliks in the said suit clearly stated that all parties had surrendered their rights in favour of M/s. Rizvi Estate and Hotels Pvt. Ltd. on 11th April, 1988.
3.7 Meanwhile, the Court of Civil Judge, Jr. Division, vide judgment dated 22nd July, 1999, decreed the injunction suit filed by respondent no. 1 and restrained M/s. Rizvi Estate and Hotels Pvt. Ltd. from demolishing the building. The decree and judgme
A transferee pendente lite has no right to resist the decree under Order XXI, Rules 97 and 101 of the CPC.
A subsequent purchaser cannot assert rights against a prior decree holder, as established by the doctrine of lis pendens under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act.
(1) Lis Pendens – Section 52 of T.P. Act has no application where transfer in favour of subsequent purchaser is not after filing of suit but before filing of suit for specific performance.(2) Resista....
A purchaser of property during the pendency of a suit has no right to resist or obstruct the execution of a decree, as per Order XXI Rule 102 and the doctrine of lis pendens.
The doctrine of lis pendens applies to subsequent purchasers; their rights are subordinate to those of the decree holder in a specific performance case.
The Court emphasized the importance of summary determination of questions under Rule 101 of Order XXI of the C.P.C. and the applicability of Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act. It also clarif....
A lis pendens transferee holds rights to continue litigation under CPC provisions, reinforcing their standing even if not formally added as a party.
The doctrine of lis pendens bars a transferee pendente lite from maintaining an application under Order XXI Rule 97 CPC, ensuring that any transfer during litigation is subservient to the outcome of ....
Court executing decree shall determine all questions arising between parties to suit or their representatives in relation to execution, discharge, or satisfaction of decree and such questions may not....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
