Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
MANOJ MISRA, UJJAL BHUYAN, JJ.
Alka Shrirang Chavan & Anr. – Appellants
Versus
Hemchandra Rajaram Bhonsale & Ors. – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. of 2026 (Arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 27660 of 2025) With Civil Appeal No. of 2026 (Arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 27868 of 2025)
Decided On : 12-01-2026
(A) Transfer of Property Act, 1882 – Section 52 – Specific Relief Act, 1963 – Section 19 – Lis Pendens – Section 19(b) of Specific Relief Act would be available to a party to a contract who suffers a subsequent transfer of property – However, the moment a suit or proceeding is instituted by a party to contract whereafter there is transfer of suit property, Section 19(b) of Specific Relief Act would have to give way to Section 52 of Transfer of Property Act in which event doctrine of lis pendens would come into force – Rights of appellants who are subsequent purchasers are subservient to rights of decree holder – Appellants being transferee pendente lite, doctrine of lis pendens applies with full force to them. (Paras 50 and 65)
(B) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Section 47 and Order XXI Rules 97, 98 and 101 – Objection to execution of decree – There is bar to filing of separate suit in matters relating to questions covered by Section 47 – Executing Court can decide whether resister or obstructor is a person bound by decree and whether he refuses to vacate property – Section 47 CPC provides that all questions which arise between parties to original suit in which decree was passed or their representatives and which relate to execution, discharge or satisfaction of decree shall be determined by Executing Court – Scope of adjudication is limited to only question as to whether objector who has resisted execution is a transferee pendente lite or not and if finding is in affirmative, then such a transferee has no right to resist. (Paras 51.1, 59.1 and 65)
(C) Limitation Act, 1963 – Articles 129 and 134 – Application for possession – Period of limitation – Article 129 of Limitation Act prescribes a period of limitation of 30 days for filing application for possession after removing resistance or obstruction to delivery of possession of immovable property decreed or sold in execution of a decree – This period of 30 days is to be counted from date of resistance or obstruction – Likewise, under Article 134, period of limitation for delivery of possession by a purchaser of immovable property at a sale in execution of a decree is one year which limitation period would begin to run from date when sale becomes absolute. (Para 71)
Facts of the case:
These two civil appeals by special leave are directed against the judgment and order dated 19.12.2024 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay (briefly ‘the High Court’ hereinafter) in Second Appeal No. 396 of 2022 (Alka Shrirang Chavan and Anr. Vs. Hemchandra Rajaram Bhonsale & Ors.) and Second Appeal (ST) No. 22336 of 2022 (Jaymala Shriram Date Vs. Hemchandra Rajaram Bhonsale and Ors.).
Findings of Court:
No further application(s) or petition(s) either by appellants or by judgment debtor i.e. respondent No. 2 or by any other person claiming right qua the suit property through them shall be entertained by any court. We consider such a direction to be necessary to ensure that respondent No. 1 is 72 not subjected to any further harassment which will meet ends of justice.
Result : Appeals dismissed.
The Supreme Court's brief findings are as follows:
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 (!) .
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 (!) .
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 (!) .
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 (!) .
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 (!) .
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 (!) .
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 (!) .
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 (!) .
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.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. background of the case and key agreement details. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 2. execution proceedings and previous judgments. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20) |
| 3. obstruction to execution of decree. (Para 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25) |
| 4. debate over ownership and rights concerning decrees. (Para 36 , 37) |
| 5. court's interpretation of the law and execution implications. (Para 39 , 70 , 71) |
| 6. final conclusion on ownership and enforcement of judgments. (Para 62 , 64 , 66) |
| 7. conclusive orders by the court. (Para 72 , 73 , 74 , 75) |
JUDGMENT :
UJJAL BHUYAN, J.
Leave granted.
2. These two civil appeals by special leave are directed against the judgment and order dated 19.12.2024 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay (briefly ‘the High Court’ hereinafter) in Second Appeal No. 396 of 2022 (Alka Shrirang Chavan and Anr. Vs. Hemchandra Rajaram Bhonsale & Ors.) and Second Appeal (ST) No. 22336 of 2022 ( Jaymala Shriram Date Vs. Hemchandra Rajaram Bhonsale and Ors. ).
2.1. Be it stated that by the impugned judgment and order dated 19.12.2024, the High Court has dismissed both the second appeals preferred by the appellants holding that there is no merit in any of the substantial questions of law raised by the appellants. However, the High Court granted stay for a period of three months.
3. Relevant facts may be briefly noted.
4. Respondent No. 1 is the plaintiff (decree holder). He had entered into an agreement for sale with the defendant Rajaram Bajirao Pokale on 26.04.1973.
5. Since the defendant failed to perform his part of the contract, respondent No. 1 (plaintiff) instituted Regular Civil Suit No. 910 of 1986 on 28.04.1986 in the Court of learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Pune against respondent No. 2 i.e. the defendant (judgment debtor). In the said suit, plaintiff sought for a decree ordering the defendant to execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff. In the event defendant failed to execute the sale deed, the court be pleased to execute the sale deed through its officers and to put the plaintiff in actual possession of the suit property.
6. On 02.05.1986, respondent No. 1 (plaintiff) registered lis pendens.
7. During the period from 07.05.1987 to 31.08.1987, respondent No. 2 (judgment debtor) by eight sale deeds transferred the right, title and interest of various parts of the suit property to different persons. Jaymala Shriram Date, the appellant in Second Appeal (ST) No. 22336 of 2022, is claiming right, title and interest on the basis of one such registered sale deed dated 07.07.1987.
8. In the year 1989, one Shri Sarangdhar, one of the transferee pendente lite, constructed a bungalow on an area admeasuring 5R, which is part of the suit property.
9. Learned 3rd Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Pune vide the judgment and order dated 30.11.1990 decreed Regular Civil Suit No. 910 of 1986. Operative portion of the decree dated 30.11.1990 reads as under:
(2) The plaintiff is directed to pay Rs. l775.00 to the defendant and defendant is directed to execute the document of sale-deed in respect of the suit land bearing Survey No. 155 Pot Hissa 3 admeasuring 36 gunthas situated at village Dhayari, Taluka Haveli, District Pune in favour of the plaintiff, within two months from this order.
(3) If the defendant fails to execute the sale-deed in favour of the plaintiff, then the plaintiff is at liberty to get the document of sale deed executed through Court Commissioner and the defendant is directed to bear its cost.
(4) The defendant is also directed to hand over vacant possession of the suit land peacefully to the plaintiff.
(5) Defendant shall pay costs of this suit to the plaintiff and bear his own.
10. Regular Darkhast No. 205 of 1991 i.e. execution petition was filed by respondent No. 1 (decree holder) against respondent No. 2 on 03.07.1991 for execution of the decree.
11. On 25.03.1993, on orders of the Executing Court, the Court Commissioner on behalf
The doctrine of lis pendens applies to subsequent purchasers; their rights are subordinate to those of the decree holder in a specific performance case.
(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....
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 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) Appeal – Locus Standi – A stranger cannot be permitted to file an appeal in any proceedings unless he satisfies court that he falls within category of aggrieved persons.(2) Impleadment of transfe....
During pendency in any court having authority within limits of India of any suit or proceeding which is not collusive and in which any right to immovable property is directly and specifically in ques....
A pendente lite purchaser cannot assert independent title in execution proceedings, as the doctrine of lis pendens prevails over claims of bona fide purchasers under the Specific Relief Act.
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
