Latest JudgementCode of Civil Procedure, 1908Transfer of Property Act, 1882

Alka Shrirang Chavan & Anr. v. Hemchandra Rajaram Bhonsale & Ors., 2026

The judgment reinforces the absolute nature of the doctrine of lis pendens.

Supreme Court of India·14 January 2026

Court

Supreme Court of India

Date of Decision

14 January 2026

Judges

Justice Manoj Misra & Justice Ujjal Bhuyan

Citation

Acts / Provisions

Section 52, Transfer of Property Act, 1882 Order XXI Rule 97, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 Order XXI Rule 102, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908

Facts of the Case

An agreement for sale was executed in 1973.
Due to default by the seller, a suit for specific performance was filed in 1986 by the original purchaser.
The suit was decreed in 1990 in favour of the original buyer.
During pendency of the suit, the judgment-debtor sold portions of the property to third parties.
The present appellants derived title from those third parties, making them transferees pendente lite.
Execution proceedings commenced in 1991, and a court-executed sale deed was registered in 1993.
Delivery of possession was repeatedly obstructed.
In 2019, the appellants filed objections under Order XXI Rule 97 CPC resisting execution.
The executing court, appellate court, and Bombay High Court rejected the objections.
The appellants approached the Supreme Court challenging the dismissal.

Whether a transferee pendente lite has the right to resist execution of a decree for specific performance?
Whether a transfer made during pendency of litigation is hit by Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act?
Whether objections under Order XXI Rule 97 CPC are maintainable in view of the bar under Order XXI Rule 102 CPC against transferees pendente lite?

The Supreme Court held that a transfer made during pendency of a suit is squarely hit by Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act.
It reiterated that a transferee pendente lite is bound by the outcome of the litigation.
The Court observed that once it is established that the objector is a transferee pendente lite, no further adjudication is required.
It held that Order XXI Rule 102 CPC expressly bars such transferees from resisting execution.
The Court noted that knowledge of pendency of the suit is immaterial for application of lis pendens.
Reliance was placed on Silverline Forum Pvt. Ltd. v. Rajiv Trust and Tahir V. Isani v. Madan Waman Chodankar.
The Court rejected reliance on Lala Durga Prasad v. Lala Deep Chand (1953) 2 SCC 509, distinguishing it on facts.
It held that the decree and conveyance in favour of the original buyer had attained finality.

A transferee pendente lite has no right to obstruct execution of a decree.
The appellants were directed to hand over actual physical possession of the suit property.
The appeal was dismissed.
A blanket injunction was issued restraining future litigation in respect of the subject property.
Possession was directed to be handed over by 15 February 2026.

The judgment reinforces the absolute nature of the doctrine of lis pendens.
It clarifies that Order XXI Rule 102 CPC creates a statutory bar, leaving no discretion to courts.
The ruling prevents abuse of execution proceedings through successive transfers.
It strengthens certainty and finality in specific performance decrees.
The extraordinary injunction reflects judicial intolerance toward frivolous and obstructive litigation.
The decision aligns procedural law with substantive justice by prioritizing decree-holder rights.