Supreme Court Holds Transferees Pendente Lite Bound by Decree; Directs Possession Hand‑over and Bars Further Litigation

A bench of Justices Manoj Misra and Ujjal Bhuyan heard appeals against the Bombay High Court’s judgment dismissing second appeals by persons who purchased portions of suit land during the pendency of a suit for specific performance. The appeals challenged the Executing Court’s and appellate courts’ orders allowing execution of a decree for specific performance, the sale deed executed by the Court Commissioner in favour of the decree‑holder and directions for delivery of possession, on the ground that transferees pendente lite were not impleaded and had acquired title.

The Court dismissed the appeals and upheld the view that transfers pendente lite remained subservient to the decree for specific performance, that the Executing Court had correctly adjudicated objections under Order XXI Rules 97–101 CPC, and that the decree‑holder had acquired valid title by the sale deed executed by the Court Commissioner. The Court quoted established precedent and reiterated the doctrine of lis pendens: The Court, in its reasoning, observed: “In the aforesaid factual background, it is clear as day light that the rights of the appellants who are subsequent purchasers are subservient to the rights of the decree holder. After the judgment and decree of the trial court and following execution of the sale deed by the Court Commissioner, a valid title qua the suit property passed on to respondent No. 1 (decree holder). Admittedly in the present case, the transfer of the suit property is pendente lite. Therefore, the doctrine of lis pendens as encapsulated in Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act is squarely applicable. All the courts have recorded a clear finding of fact that the appellants were fully aware of the pendency of the suit. However, even that is not necessary. As has been held by this Court in Silverline, the scope of adjudication is limited to the only question as to whether the objector who has resisted execution is a transferee pendente lite or not and if the finding is in the affirmative, then such a transferee has no right to resist. In so far the present case is concerned, the rights of the appellants have been duly adjudicated under Order XXI Rules 97 to 102 CPC to the complete satisfaction of the Executing Court. That being the position, there is no merit at all in the case projected by the appellants and the Executing Court rightly passed the order dated 29.02.2020.” The Court further ordered that appellants must hand over actual physical possession to the decree‑holder by 15.02.2026 and, invoking its power to prevent further harassment, directed that no further applications by the appellants, the judgment‑debtor or persons claiming through them shall be entertained.

Background The dispute arose from an agreement for sale dated 26.04.1973 and a suit for specific performance filed by respondent No.1 on 28.04.1986; lis pendens was registered on 02.05.1986. During pendency, the judgment‑debtor executed eight sale deeds in 1987 in favour of third parties, and portions were later conveyed to the present appellants by registered deeds in 1995–96. The trial court decreed specific performance on 30.11.1990; execution proceedings culminated in a sale deed executed by the Court Commissioner on 25.03.1993. Subsequent attempts by the judgment‑debtor and others to set aside execution were dismissed and the execution process proceeded; a possession warrant was issued for 18.01.2019, but appellants resisted and filed objections the same day. The Executing Court allowed the decree‑holder’s applications for removal of obstructions (order dated 29.02.2020), the appellate court dismissed the related appeals, and the High Court dismissed the second appeals on 19.12.2024 while extending interim protection for three months. The Supreme Court considered the interplay of Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act (lis pendens), Section 19(b) of the Specific Relief Act and Order XXI Rules 97–101 CPC. The Court cited precedent that “As per the doctrine of lis pendens, nothing new can be introduced during the pendency of a petition and if at all anything new is introduced, the same would also be subject to the final outcome of the petition,” and held that transfers pendente lite were subservient to the decree. The appeals were dismissed, possession was ordered to be handed over by 15.02.2026, and the Court directed that no further proceedings touching the suit property by the appellants or the judgment‑debtor would be entertained to prevent continued harassment of the decree‑holder.

Case Details: Case No.: 2026 INSC 52 Case Title: Alka Shrirang Chavan & Anr. v. Hemchandra Rajaram Bhonsale & Ors. Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Vinay Navare, Senior Advocate (for appellants) For the Respondent(s): Hemchandra Rajaram Bhonsale (respondent No.1) in person (appeared with his son who is an advocate)