1. Suit for specific performance — Registration of lis pendens — Transfer of property pendente lite — Decree for specific performance — Execution of sale deed by Court Commissioner — Obstruction to possession. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 9 , 11 , 13 , 23 , 24 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(SC) 54
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
Important Points
The doctrine of lis pendens applies to subsequent purchasers; their rights are subordinate to those of the decree holder in a specific performance case.
Subject
Civil Law - Property Law
Act Referred
Headnote
(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.
Judgement Key Points
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.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- property law
- practice and procedure
Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Shivaji M. Jadhav, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Caveator-in-person, AOR
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Shivaji M. Jadhav, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Caveator-in-person, AOR
Table of Contents
2. Appellants contend subsequent purchasers must be joined in Court-executed sale deeds to pass title; Decree Holder argues pendente lite transferees are bound by the decree under Section 52, TPA. (Para 36 , 37 )
3. The court analyzed Section 52 TPA and Order XXI Rules 97-101 CPC, finding that pendente lite transferees are subservient to the final decree and cannot obstruct execution. (Para 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 58 , 59 , 60 , 61 , 65 , 66 , 67 , 68 , 70 , 71 )
4. Transferees pendente lite are bound by the final decree under Section 52, TPA, and cannot obstruct execution as they step into the shoes of the judgment debtor. (Para 50 , 65 )
5. Appeals dismissed — Appellants directed to hand over physical possession — Bar on further applications or petitions regarding the suit property. (Para 72 , 73 , 74 , 75 )
6. What is the effect of the doctrine of lis pendens on property transferred during the pendency of a suit?
Under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, property transferred pendente lite is not void but remains subservient to the final decree. The transferee is bound by the result of the proceedings regardless of whether they had notice of the suit. (Para 40 , 41 , 65 , 66 )
7. Can a transferee pendente lite obstruct the execution of a decree for possession of immovable property?
No. A transferee pendente lite has no independent right to resist or obstruct execution. Under Order XXI Rule 98(2) and Rule 102, such persons are bound by the decree and can be removed to deliver possession to the decree holder. (Para 56 , 61 , 65 )
8. Is it necessary to join subsequent pendente lite purchasers in a sale deed executed by a Court Commissioner to pass valid title?
No. Since the transfer is pendente lite, the transferee's rights are subservient to the decree. The decree holder acquires valid title via the Court-executed sale deed without needing to implead subsequent transferees. (Para 65 )
9. What is the limitation period for filing an application to remove resistance or obstruction to the delivery of possession?
Under Article 129 of the Limitation Act, 1963, an application for possession after removing resistance or obstruction must be filed within 30 days from the date of such resistance or obstruction. (Para 71 )
10. What is the purpose of the requirement to register a notice of pendency under the Maharashtra amendment to Section 52 TPA?
The registration of notice of pendency is intended to caution third parties and prevent hardship to bona fide purchasers. However, its absence does not render the doctrine of lis pendens inapplicable or allow parties to circumvent judicial proceedings. (Para 44 , 45 )
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:
(1) The suit is decreed ex parte.
(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 of respondent No. 2 (judgment debtor) executed the sale deed in favour of respondent No. 1 (decree holder).
12. Respondent No. 2 (judgment debtor) filed an application under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (‘CPC’ for short) below Ex. 28 in Regular Darkhast No. 205 of 1991 on 09.08.1994 stating that he had transferred the right, title and interest over the suit property to various purchasers in or about 1987. Therefore, he prayed that the sale deed executed by the Court Commissioner in favour of respondent No. 1 (decree holder) be cancelled.
13. By regis
