Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Shivaji M. Jadhav, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Caveator-in-person, AOR

The Supreme Court's brief findings are as follows:

1. The doctrine of lis pendens prohibits the transfer or dealing with immovable property during the pendency of a suit involving a specific right to that property, ensuring the preservation of the parties' rights until final adjudication (!) .

2. Transfers made by a judgment debtor during ongoing litigation are considered pendente lite transactions and are generally binding on subsequent transferees who have notice of the suit; such transferees do not acquire independent or absolute title capable of obstructing decree enforcement (!) .

3. Transferees pendente lite are bound by the final decree and cannot claim independent rights to resist execution; their rights are subordinate to the decree, and they are deemed to have stepped into the shoes of the judgment debtor, losing any independent title that could obstruct enforcement (!) .

4. The court has the authority to adjudicate questions related to right, title, or interest during execution proceedings, including removing obstructions and delivering possession, and can order detention for contempt if resistance is unjustified (!) .

5. Obstructions or resistance to possession by third parties claiming rights are to be determined by the executing court, which can decide on their justification and order removal and possession transfer, limited to questions relevant to the resistance and not re-examining the finality of the decree unless specifically challenged (!) .

6. Registration of lis pendens acts as a caution to third parties and aids in protecting litigating parties’ rights; however, absence of registration does not invalidate lis pendens entirely, and due diligence by third parties is necessary to prevent hardship and exploitation of procedural gaps (!) .

7. Purchases during the pendency of a suit are subject to the final decree, and such transferees are bound by the outcome; transfers made with notice of the suit do not create independent rights capable of obstructing enforcement (!) .

8. Delays in executing decrees do not necessarily bar the decree holder’s rights, provided applications are made within the prescribed limitation periods; the rights under the decree remain enforceable despite long delays (!) .

9. To prevent further harassment and ensure swift enforcement, the court directs that no additional applications concerning the property shall be entertained, safeguarding the decree holder’s rights and promoting expeditious execution (!) .

Overall, the findings emphasize the binding nature of final decrees, the subordinate status of subsequent transfers during litigation, and the court’s power to enforce rights efficiently, upholding the integrity of judicial proceedings and protecting the interests of decree holders.