Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query!
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query!
Scanned Judgements…!
Transferees pendente lite lack independent rights, cannot demand impleadment or full adjudication; decree holder can execute possession directly, removing obstruction under Order XXI Rule 97/102. If unfair, inequitable or undeserved protection is afforded to a transferee pendente lite, a decree-holder will never be able to realize the fruits of his decree ["M.S.Eva Laberibe, Director Maison des Arts Private Limited vs S.Radhakrishnan - Madras"] ["Dilip Kumar VS Vijay Bahadur Singh - Madhya Pradesh"] ["Tahir V. Isani VS Madan Waman Chodankar (Since Deceased) Now through His Legal Representatives - Supreme Court"]. Not necessary for decree holder to implead such transferee ["RAKESH KUMAR CHOPRA vs HAWA SINGH & ORS - Punjab and Haryana"] ["Hakim Mohammad Illayas Khan VS Sahab Collector Bahadur (Aligarh) - Allahabad"] ["Sri Lakshmi Rama Cooperative Building Society Limited, Vs Shaik Ismail (died) - Andhra Pradesh"].
In property disputes, a common scenario arises: a decree holder seeks possession under a court decree, but a transferee pendente lite—who acquired rights from the judgment-debtor after the suit began—obstructs execution. The key question is: whether it is necessary for the decree holder to implead the transferee pendente lite who derives right through the judgment-debtor in execution of the decree for possession in his favour?
Generally, Indian courts have consistently ruled that no such impleadment is required. Transferees pendente lite are bound by the decree under the doctrine of lis pendens (Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882—TPA) and cannot obstruct execution proceedings under Order XXI Rule 102 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC). This protects the decree holder's rights and prevents judgment-debtors from frustrating decrees through post-suit transfers. This blog delves into the legal framework, precedents, and practical implications, drawing from established case law. Note: This is general information, not specific legal advice. Consult a qualified lawyer for your case.
Section 52 TPA is the cornerstone: During the pendency of a suit or proceeding involving immovable property, no transfer can affect the rights of any party to the suit under any decree or order passed therein, unless made with court permission. The transferee pendente lite is bound by the outcome as if a party to the suit. This principle, rooted in public policy, equity, and good conscience, treats lis pendens as constructive notice. Alka Shrirang Chavan VS Hemchandra Rajaram Bhonsale - Current Civil Cases (2024)Menka Gupta VS Umashree Devi - 2019 0 Supreme(SC) 2186Thiru. Jagadeesan VS Thiru. N. Subramani - 2011 0 Supreme(Mad) 1102Padmaja VS Erattil Sajeev - 2005 0 Supreme(Ker) 175
The transfer is not annulled but rendered subservient to litigation rights. Alka Shrirang Chavan VS Hemchandra Rajaram Bhonsale - Current Civil Cases (2024)Padmaja VS Erattil Sajeev - 2005 0 Supreme(Ker) 175
Execution proceedings prioritize swift enforcement:- Rule 97: Enables the decree holder to seek removal of resistance or obstruction to possession.- Rules 98 & 100: Allow inquiry into claims of independent right or title by obstructors, potentially leading to adjudication.- Rule 102 (crucial): Nothing in Rules 98 and 100 shall apply to resistance or obstruction by a transferee pendente lite from the judgment-debtor after institution of the suit. No inquiry is needed; such transferees cannot invoke these protections. Mohd. Idaris VS Abdul Hai - 1999 0 Supreme(Raj) 1055Menka Gupta VS Umashree Devi - 2019 0 Supreme(SC) 2186Thiru. Jagadeesan VS Thiru. N. Subramani - 2011 0 Supreme(Mad) 1102Padmaja VS Erattil Sajeev - 2005 0 Supreme(Ker) 175- Rule 101: Obstructionists' rights are decided per law, but pendente lite transferees are excluded.
A possession or specific performance decree binds them unless they prove independent pre-suit title. Good faith or possession post-suit is irrelevant. Alka Shrirang Chavan VS Hemchandra Rajaram Bhonsale - Current Civil Cases (2024)Padmaja VS Erattil Sajeev - 2005 0 Supreme(Ker) 175
Courts across jurisdictions affirm that decree holders need not implead pendente lite transferees, who lack locus to resist.
The respondent, a pendente lite purchaser, sought impleadment and resisted execution. The Court held: Rule 102 bars Rules 98/100 application; transferee presumed aware of lis pendens (constructive notice). Decree holder can execute unhindered. Separate suits post-decree are possible, but no interim resistance. This underscores no need for impleadment during execution.
In a case of pendente lite purchasers obstructing a specific performance decree, the court ruled: Section 52 TPA renders their rights subservient; failed to prove independent title. Alka Shrirang Chavan VS Hemchandra Rajaram Bhonsale - Current Civil Cases (2024) Doctrine of lis pendens prevails over bona fide purchaser claims under Specific Relief Act Section 19(b). Ashok Kumar VS Amsu - 2024 Supreme(Mad) 2159 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.
A tenant-transferee pendente lite obstructed possession, claiming tenancy. Held: Transferee pendente lite acquires no rights detrimental to decree holder. Bound by decree under Rule 102; Rules 98/100 inapplicable. Mohd. Idaris VS Abdul Hai - 1999 0 Supreme(Raj) 1055
Further, executing courts can remove pendente lite constructions: The executing court has the power to remove unauthorized constructions made pendente lite and to ensure full enforcement of the possession decree. Ajit Singh Deceased Through Lrs VS Padma Bhandari Deceased Through Lrs - 2021 Supreme(Del) 1228Mohd. Iqbal Khatri VS Jadav Devi through her Legal Representatives - 2015 Supreme(Raj) 1048 Admittedly, pending suit the petitioner had constructed shops and inducted tenants... the decree holder is empowered to have it removed in execution.
A post-decree (but pendente lite) purchaser was barred: Transferee pendente lite cannot obstruct; limited adjudication on status. Thiru. Jagadeesan VS Thiru. N. Subramani - 2011 0 Supreme(Mad) 1102
On impleadment: Petitioner, being transferee pendente lite, had no right to raise any obstruction or resistance... application for impleading her as party opponent rejected. Savitriben Mayarambhai Thakkar VS Pandya Harshkantbhai Dahyabhai - 2021 Supreme(Guj) 459 Where the resistance is caused... by a transferee pendente lite, the scope of adjudication is confined to whether he was a transferee during the pendency.
Rights are subservient; no compensation for improvements. Section 52 TPA overrides Specific Relief Act claims. Padmaja VS Erattil Sajeev - 2005 0 Supreme(Ker) 175 In chain transactions: Transferees pendente lite from the JD having no independent right. Veena Mahajan VS V. N Verma - 2023 Supreme(Del) 164
Additional sources reinforce: Even in preliminary decrees or agreements to sell, pendente lite status bars resistance. RAJENDRAN vs MOHANAMBALUjagar Singh VS Saheb Khan - 2007 Supreme(Raj) 377 The right of a transferee pendente lite is subservient to the decree.
Typically, decree holders do not need to implead transferees pendente lite in possession execution. Order XXI Rule 102 CPC and Section 52 TPA ensure their subservience, allowing unobstructed enforcement. This upholds judicial finality against abuse.
Key Takeaways:- Prove pendente lite status to bypass inquiries.- Focus on execution; transferees' remedies are post-facto.- Courts prioritize decree fruits over subsequent claims.
For tailored advice, engage a legal expert. Stay informed on evolving jurisprudence to safeguard your property rights.
#LisPendens, #CPCExecution, #PendenteLite
a pendente lite transferee, it recognises the latter's right to implead https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ least at the stage of execution of the decree for delivery to the preliminary decree, what right in the deceased pendente lite seller would survive on his death? ... possession of the property.
and held in favour of the respondent-decree holder. ... If unfair, inequitable or undeserved protection is afforded to a transferee pendente lite, a decree-holder will never be able to realize the fruits of his decree. ... Under Rule 102 of C.P.C, Order XXI makes it clear that Rule 98 and Rule 100 are not applicable in respect of person who claims to be possession of the immovable property against the decree #HL_ST....
If unfair, inequitable or undeserved protection is' afforded to a transferee pendente lite, a decree holder will never be able to realize the fruits of his decree. ... No doubt if the resistance was made by a transferee pendente lite of the judge ment debtor, the scope of the adjudication would be shrunk to the limited question whether he is such a transferee and on a finding in the affirmative regarding that point the execution Cou....
That being so, such transactions are pendente lite with the decree of specific performance binding on them. All the transferee pendente lite have no right or locus standi to obstruct execution of the decree for possession as they have stepped into the shoes of the judgment debtor. ... In fact, it does not create any right, title and interest in or charge over the immovable property in favour of th....
No. 1523/79 in the said execution petition the 1st respondent/decree-holder sought to implead the revision petitioner herein as a party to the execution petition as he had obtained a deed of sale pendente lite. ... As the decisions show, it is based upon expediency, and it is immaterial whether the alienee pendente lite had or had not notice of the suit ... ... There after, the 1st respondent/decree#HL_EN....
Therefore, it has been made clear by the Honourable Supreme Court that in an enquiry under Order XXI Rule 97, when an obstructor objects to the delivery of possession by the decree holder, claiming independent right, the court has to find out whether the obstructor has got any legal right to be in possession ... in favour of the decree holder at the instance of the obstructor. ... The decree #HL_S....
lite and bound by the decree passed in this case. ... Decree holder was dispossessed on 25.06.95. ... Decree holder never came to know of the transfer in favour of objector and was not required to implead him as party as objector stepped passed in favour of the original owner/landlord.
Hence, the question for determination is whether the title of the Objectors is superior to that of the Decree Holder and whether they are entitled to remain in possession on the strength of the Agreement to Sell dated 26th November, 1990 executed in their favour by Ms. Kamlesh Gupta. ... (2009) 4 CTC 489, the Madras High Court observed that the transferees pendente lite from the JD having no independent right in the teeth of Section....
If unfair, inequitable or undeserved protection is afforded to a transferee pendente lite, a decree-holder will never be able to realise the fruits of his decree. ... Resistance or obstruction to possession of immovable property: (1) Where the holder of a decree for the possession of immovable property or the purchaser of any such property sold in execution of a decree is resisted or obstructed by....
Order XXI Rule 97 of C.P.C provides for the decree holder to move the Executing Court for assistance in obtaining possession of immovable property from any person who obstructs the decree holder from obtaining possession. ... No doubt if the resistance was made by a transferee pendente lite of the judgment debtor, the scope of the adjudication would be shrunk to the limited question whether he is such transferee and on a finding in ....
Admittedly, pending suit the petitioner had constructed shops and inducted tenants in possession without permission of the court. If any obstruction is raised by putting up a construction pendente lite or prevents the passage or right to access to the property pendente lite, the plaintiff has been given right and the decree holder is empowered to have it removed in execution without torturous remedy of separate suit seeking mandatory injunction or for possession so as to avoid delay in execution or frustration and thereby defeat the decree. The executing court, therefore, w....
6. Having regard to the submissions made by the learned Advocates for the parties and perusing the record, it appears that the petitioner had indisputedly purchased the property after the passing of the preliminary decree in the suit in favour of the respondent No. 1 and therefore, was a transferee pendente lite. Therefore, the short question that arises for determination before this court is whether the petitioner, who is a transferee pendente lite had a right to resist or obstruct the Execution of decree passed by a competent Court? As such the said issue is no more res i....
The executing court, therefore, would be justified to order its removal of unlawful or illegal construction made pendente lite so that the decree for possession or eviction, as the case may be, effectually and completely executed and the delivery of possession is given to the decree-holder expeditiously. If any obstruction or hindrance is caused for its enjoyment or use, the owner, of necessity, has the remedy to have it removed. If any obstruction is raised by putting up a construction pendente lite or prevents the passage or right to access to the property pendente lite, the plai....
If any obstruction or hindrance is caused for its enjoyment or use, the owner, of necessity, has the remedy to have it removed. The executing court, therefore, would be justified to order its removal of unlawful or illegal construction made pendente lite so that the decree for possession or eviction, as the case may be, effectually and completely executed and the delivery of possession is given to the decree-holder expeditiously. Admittedly, pending suit the petitioner had constructed shops and inducted tenants in possession without permission of the court. If any obstruction is ra....
The decree can be enforced even against the tranferee without notice. The benefit that could be claimed by a subsequent transferee under Sec.19(b) of the Specific Relief Act would not be available to a transferee pendente lite. “The right of a transferee pendente lite is subservient to the decree and he is bound by the decree passed in the suit against his transferor. (iii) Padmaja vs. Erattil Sajeev and Ors., AIR 2007 (NOC) 70 (Ker.)
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
