ALKA SHRIRANG CHAVAN v. HEMCHANDRA RAJARAM BHONSALE
Doctrine of Lis Pendens: Subsequent Purchasers Bound by Decree Despite Objections; Execution of Specific Performance Decree Upheld.
Court: Supreme Court of India
Citation: 2026 INSC 52
Decision Date: 12-01-2026
List of Laws
Transfer of Property Act, 1882; Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882; Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Order XXI Rule 35 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Order XXI Rule 97 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Order XXI Rule 98 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Order XXI Rule 101 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Specific Relief Act, 1963; Section 19 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963; Limitation Act, 1963; Article 142 of the Constitution of India
- Facts: A plaintiff (Respondent No. 1) entered into an agreement for sale with a defendant (Rajaram Bajirao Pokale) in 1973. The defendant failed to perform his part of the contract, leading the plaintiff to file a suit for specific performance in 1986. During the pendency of the suit, the defendant transferred parts of the suit property to various individuals through eight sale deeds in 1987. The plaintiff registered a lis pendens in 1986. The appellants (Alka Shrirang Chavan & Anr.) are subsequent purchasers of a portion of the suit property. The trial court decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiff in 1990.
- Procedural Posture: The appellants, as obstructionists to the execution of the decree, challenged the Executing Court's order allowing the decree holder's application for possession. Their appeals were dismissed by the appellate court and subsequently by the High Court. This appeal before the Supreme Court arises from the High Court's dismissal of their second appeals.
- Issue: Whether the subsequent purchasers (appellants), who acquired the property during the pendency of the suit and after the registration of lis pendens, can obstruct the execution of the decree for specific performance against the original judgment debtor? Whether the decree holder was required to implead the subsequent purchasers in the execution proceedings?
- Holding: The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, holding that the rights of the subsequent purchasers are subservient to the rights of the decree holder due to the doctrine of lis pendens under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. The Court affirmed that the executing court correctly adjudicated the matter and that the subsequent purchasers, being transferees pendente lite, have no right to resist the execution of the decree.
- Reasoning: The Court reasoned that Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act encapsulates the doctrine of lis pendens, which prevents the transfer of property during the pendency of a suit in a way that affects the rights of any other party. The Court emphasized that the transferees pendente lite are bound by the decree, and the executing court has the power to deal with all questions arising in the matter, irrespective of whether the court otherwise has jurisdiction to entertain a dispute of that nature. The Court also noted that the appellants were aware of the pendency of the suit, but even if they were not, the doctrine of lis pendens would still apply. The Court rejected the appellants' reliance on the case of Lala Durga Prasad, distinguishing it on the facts, as in that case, the subsequent transaction occurred before the filing of the suit. The Court further directed that no further applications or petitions related to the suit property be entertained to prevent further harassment of the decree holder.
🔒 For Members Only