Case at a Glance
A buyer sued in 1986 for specific performance of a 1973 agreement for land in Pune, registered a lis pendens notice, and won a decree on 30 November 1990; a Court Commissioner executed the sale deed in 1993. While the suit was pending and afterwards, the seller sold portions to others, who resisted delivery of possession when the decree-holder finally obtained a warrant. The Supreme Court held that such transferees pendente lite are bound by the decree under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, dismissed their appeals, ordered them to hand over physical possession by 15 February 2026 and barred any further applications by them or the judgment-debtor.
The decree-holder filed Regular Civil Suit No. 910 of 1986 in Pune on 28 April 1986 and registered a lis pendens notice on 2 May 1986. In 1987 the judgment-debtor executed several sale deeds over parts of the land; the appellants bought portions in 1987, 1995 and 1996. The suit was decreed ex parte on 30 November 1990, and the Court Commissioner executed the sale deed in the decree-holder’s favour on 25 March 1993. The judgment-debtor’s attempts to undo the decree — an appeal with a delay application, a cancellation suit and objections under Section 47 CPC — all failed.
When the executing court issued a possession warrant under Order XXI Rule 35, the appellants obstructed it on 18 January 2019. The executing court allowed the decree-holder’s application to remove the obstruction on 29 February 2020; the first appellate court and, on 19 December 2024, the Bombay High Court in second appeal upheld that order. The appellants argued that they were bona fide purchasers, that their vendors were not joined in the 1993 sale deed, and that the claim for possession was time-barred.
The Key Question Before the Court
Can persons who bought the suit property from the judgment-debtor during the pendency of a specific performance suit resist delivery of possession to the decree-holder?
Subservient to the Decree
Reading Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act with Order XXI Rules 97 to 102 CPC, the Court held that a transferee pendente lite steps into the shoes of the judgment-debtor and has no independent right to resist execution. Relying on Thomson Press (India) Ltd. v. Nanak Builders and Investors Pvt. Ltd., (2013) 02 SC CK 0033, Silverline Forum Pvt. Ltd. v. Rajiv Trust, (1998) 03 SC CK 0084 and Usha Sinha v. Dina Ram, (2008) 03 SC CK 0148, it said “the rights of the appellants who are subsequent purchasers are subservient to the rights of the decree holder.” Section 19(b) of the Specific Relief Act, which protects bona fide purchasers without notice, would have to give way to Section 52. Lala Durga Prasad v. Lala Deep Chand, (1953) 11 SC CK 0005 was distinguished because the sale there preceded the suit.
The limitation plea was rejected: it had not been raised earlier, and the application to remove obstruction was filed within 30 days of the obstruction. Recalling NSS Narayana Sarma v. Goldstone Exports (P) Ltd., (2001) 11 SC CK 0044, which observed that a litigant’s difficulties are by no means over on getting a decree for immovable property, the Court noted that the decree-holder was yet to enjoy the fruits of his litigation success more than three decades after the decree.
What the Court Actually Held
- Purchasers who bought the suit property from the judgment-debtor during the pendency of the suit are bound by the decree under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act.
- In execution, such transferees pendente lite cannot set up an independent right to obstruct delivery of possession under Order XXI Rule 97.
- The appellants’ limitation plea failed, and the Bombay High Court’s judgment was upheld; the appeals were dismissed without costs.
- The appellants must hand over actual physical possession by 15 February 2026, and no further application by them, the judgment-debtor or anyone claiming through them is to be entertained by any court.
Why This Judgment Matters
- It warns property buyers that a registered lis pendens and a pending suit bind them, whatever their good faith.
- It strengthens execution of specific performance decrees against obstruction by later purchasers.
- It uses a bar on further applications to end a 35-year cycle of litigation.
What Should Advocates Take Away From the Judgment?
For Property Buyers
- Before buying land, search court records and lis pendens registrations; a pending suit can bind you.
- If you buy during litigation, your rights depend entirely on how the suit ends.
For Counsel
- Rely on Thomson Press (India) Ltd. v. Nanak Builders and Investors Pvt. Ltd. and Usha Sinha v. Dina Ram against obstruction by transferees pendente lite.
- File the Order XXI Rule 97 application promptly after obstruction to avoid limitation objections.
Key Takeaways
- Lis pendens binds buyers who purchase during a pending suit.
- Section 19(b) of the Specific Relief Act yields to Section 52 of the TP Act.
- Transferees pendente lite cannot obstruct execution on their own right.
- Possession must be delivered by 15 February 2026, with a bar on further applications.
Frequently Asked Questions
I bought land in good faith while a suit was pending. Am I protected?
Not against the decree in that suit. The Court held that a transferee pendente lite is bound by the decree and cannot resist execution, even under Section 19(b) of the Specific Relief Act.
Does the decree-holder need to join later buyers in the sale deed?
The Court rejected the argument that the decree could not be executed because subsequent purchasers were not joined in the Commissioner’s sale deed.
Was the possession application time-barred?
No. The plea was not raised earlier, and the application to remove obstruction was filed within 30 days of the obstruction.
Conclusion
The judgment reinforces a basic rule of property law: what a party to a pending suit sells, the buyer takes subject to the outcome of that suit.
Practical takeaway: Decree-holders facing obstruction by later buyers should invoke Section 52 and Order XXI Rules 97–101 at once; buyers must check litigation before paying for land.
Read the full judgment on CourtKutchehry: View judgment →
For more judgments, legal opinions and case analysis, visit courtkutchehry.com