Case Summary: Alka Shrirang Chavan & Anr. v. Hemchandra Rajaram Bhonsale & Ors. (2026) | Doctrine of Lis Pendens Prevails Over Specific Relief Act

The present case concerns prolonged litigation spanning over five decades, revolving around specific performance of a contract for the sale of immovable property, the doctrine of lis pendens, and the rights of transferees pendente lite resisting execution of a decree for possession. The Supreme Court was called upon to determine whether subsequent purchasers during the pendency of a suit, even after registration of a lis pendens notice, could obstruct execution of a decree for specific performance and claim an independent title over the suit property.

The appeals arose from a judgment of the Bombay High Court dated 19 December 2024, which dismissed second appeals filed by the obstructionists and upheld the decree holder’s right to obtain possession through execution.

Title of the Case: Alka Shrirang Chavan & Anr. v. Hemchandra Rajaram Bhonsale & Ors.

Citation: 2026 INSC 52

Court: Supreme Court of India

Judges: Justice Manoj Misra, Justice Ujjal Bhuyan

Parties to the Case

Respondent No. 1: Original plaintiff and decree holder, who entered into an agreement for sale in 1973.

Respondent No. 2: Original defendant and judgment debtor, who later transferred the suit property to multiple purchasers during the pendency of the suit.

Appellants: Subsequent purchasers / obstructionists, claiming ownership through registered sale deeds executed during and after the pendency of the original suit.

Facts of the Case

On 26 April 1973, Respondent No. 1 entered into an agreement for sale with Respondent No. 2 in respect of land bearing Survey No. 155, Pot Hissa 3, admeasuring 36 gunthas, situated at village Dhayari, Pune.

Due to the failure of the defendant to perform his contractual obligations, Respondent No. 1 filed Regular Civil Suit No. 910 of 1986 on 28 April 1986, seeking:

• Specific performance of the agreement,
• Execution of sale deed through court if defendant failed,
• Delivery of vacant possession.

On 2 May 1986, the plaintiff registered a notice of lis pendens under the Maharashtra amendment to Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act.

Despite the pending suit and registered lis pendens, Respondent No. 2 executed eight sale deeds between May and August 1987, transferring parts of the suit property to different purchasers.

One such transferee constructed a bungalow in 1989 on part of the suit land.

On 30 November 1990, the Civil Judge decreed the suit ex parte, directing:

• Execution of sale deed within two months,
• Delivery of vacant possession,
• Court execution of sale deed upon default.

Execution proceedings (Regular Darkhast No. 205 of 1991) were initiated on 3 July 1991.

On 25 March 1993, the Court Commissioner executed the sale deed in favour of the decree holder.

The judgment debtor made repeated attempts to nullify the decree, including:

• Application under Section 47 CPC,
• Appeal with delay condonation (dismissed),
• Revision applications,
• A separate suit for cancellation of the sale deed (dismissed for non-prosecution).

Between 1995 and 1996, the present appellants purchased 15 gunthas of the suit land through registered sale deeds from transferees of Respondent No. 2.

In 2018, the decree holder sought possession. When bailiffs attempted to execute the warrant on 18 January 2019, the appellants obstructed.

Procedural History

The appellants filed objections under Order XXI Rule 97 CPC.

The decree holder filed applications under Order XXI Rules 97–98 CPC for removal of obstruction.

The Executing Court (29 February 2020):

• Rejected the appellants’ objections,
• Held them to be transferees pendente lite,
• Ordered removal of obstruction and delivery of possession.

Appeals filed by the appellants were dismissed by:

• District Court (12 April 2022),
• Bombay High Court (19 December 2024).

The appellants approached the Supreme Court by special leave.

Issues for Determination

The Supreme Court examined, inter alia:

• Whether the decree for specific performance was executable when the judgment debtor had already transferred the property before execution of the court-executed sale deed.
• Whether a transferee pendente lite must be joined in the sale deed or execution proceedings for valid transfer of title.
• Whether the appellants could resist execution and claim independent title under Order XXI Rules 97–101 CPC.

The interplay between:

• Section 52, Transfer of Property Act (lis pendens),
• Section 19(b), Specific Relief Act,
• Section 47 CPC and Order XXI CPC.

Arguments of the Appellants

The appellants contended that:

• Transfers pendente lite are not void, and the title had passed to them through registered sale deeds.
• The decree holder did not acquire valid title since subsequent purchasers were not joined in the court-executed sale deed.
• Reliance was placed on precedents such as Lala Durga Prasad v. Lala Deep Chand and Thomson Press v. Nanak Builders.
• Under Order XXI Rule 101 CPC, the executing court was required to adjudicate its independent title.
• The application for possession was barred by limitation due to inordinate delay.

Arguments of the Respondent (Decree Holder)

The decree holder argued that:

• The appellants were transferees pendente lite after registration of lis pendens, hence bound by the decree.
• Section 52 TPA renders such transfers subservient to the decree, not independent.
• The doctrine of lis pendens is based on public policy, equity, and justice.
• Once obstruction is adjudicated under Order XXI Rules 97–98, the court must order delivery of possession.
• Joining transferees pendente lite in the sale deed is unnecessary.

Law Applied by the Supreme Court

The Court undertook a comprehensive analysis of:

Section 52, Transfer of Property Act, including the Maharashtra amendment,

• Doctrine of lis pendens,
• Section 19(b), Specific Relief Act,
• Section 47 CPC,
• Order XXI Rules 97–103 CPC (including Bombay amendments).

The Court reiterated that:

• Lis pendens applies from the date of filing of the suit until complete satisfaction of the decree.
• A transferee pendente lite steps into the shoes of the judgment debtor.
• Bona fide purchase or lack of notice is irrelevant once Section 52 applies.
• Section 19(b) operates prior to institution of suit and yields to Section 52 thereafter.

Reasoning of the Court

The Supreme Court held that:

• Transfers during the pendency of the suit, especially after registration of lis pendens, cannot defeat the decree.
• A transferee pendente lite:

Does not acquire an independent title,

Is bound by the decree as if a party to the suit.

• The sale deed executed by the Court Commissioner in 1993 was valid and effective, despite prior transfers by the judgment debtor.
• Under Order XXI Rule 98(2), obstruction by transferees pendente lite mandates removal of the obstruction and delivery of possession.
• The reliance on Lala Durga Prasad was misplaced, as that case involved a different factual and legal context.
• Allowing such obstruction would nullify Section 52 TPA and encourage abuse of judicial process.
• The decree holder had been deprived of possession for over three decades, and continued obstruction amounted to misuse of law.

Final Decision

The Supreme Court:

• Dismissed both civil appeals,
• Affirmed the judgments of the Executing Court, District Court, and Bombay High Court,
• Held that the appellants had no right to resist execution,
• Upheld the decree holder’s right to possession of the suit property.

The Court emphasised that judicial decrees cannot be rendered illusory by successive pendente lite transfers and reaffirmed the sanctity of the doctrine of lis pendens.

Click Here to Read the Official Judgment

Important Link