The Supreme Court has brought closure to a nearly four-decade-old property dispute, ruling that purchasers who bought land during the pendency of a civil suit cannot block execution of a decree for possession. The court held that such buyers step into the shoes of the original seller and remain bound by the final outcome of the case.
The judgment came in appeals challenging a Bombay High Court order that had refused to interfere with execution proceedings arising from a 1990 decree for specific performance.
Background of the Case
The dispute traces back to 1973, when the original landowner entered into an agreement to sell agricultural land in Pune district. When the sale did not materialise, the buyer approached the civil court in 1986 seeking specific performance.
Read also:- MP High Court orders removal of 102 viral court clips, warns against misuse of live-streamed hearings
While the suit was pending, the seller executed multiple sale deeds in 1987 in favour of third parties, transferring portions of the same land. Some of these transferees later constructed residential structures and further sold parts of the property.
In 1990, the trial court decreed the suit, directing execution of the sale deed and delivery of possession to the original buyer. When the seller failed to comply, the court itself executed the sale deed in 1993. The decree attained finality after repeated challenges failed.
Despite this, possession could not be handed over for decades due to continuous objections and resistance by subsequent purchasers.
Obstruction During Execution
When the decree holder finally moved for possession in 2018, he was obstructed by later purchasers who claimed independent ownership based on registered sale deeds executed during the pendency of the original suit.
Read also:- Orissa HC on Land Records: Deleting Dead Tenant's Name Requires Mutation Case, Not Straight Writ Direction
The executing court rejected their objections, holding that the transfers were hit by the doctrine of lis pendens. Appeals before the district court and the Bombay High Court also failed, leading the purchasers to approach the Supreme Court.
Arguments Before the Supreme Court
The appellants argued that since they were not parties to the original suit or to the court-executed sale deed, no valid title had passed to the decree holder. They relied on earlier Supreme Court rulings to claim that transferees during litigation must be joined in conveyance proceedings.
Opposing this, the decree holder who appeared in person submitted that the purchasers had bought the land with full notice of pending litigation. He argued that allowing such objections would defeat the very purpose of the doctrine of lis pendens.
Court’s Observations
A Bench led by Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice Manoj Misra examined Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act and the scheme of execution under the Civil Procedure Code.
“The doctrine of lis pendens is based on equity, good conscience and public policy,” the Bench observed, noting that any transfer during litigation remains subject to the final decree.
Read also:- Anticipatory Bail Rejected in ATS Case as Allahabad High Court Cites National Security Concerns
The court clarified that while transfers made during pendency are not void, they do not create rights superior to those decided by the court. A transferee pendente lite, the Bench said, “is bound by the decree just as much as the original party.”
On execution proceedings, the court stressed that once objections by such transferees are adjudicated under Order XXI Rules 97 to 101, the executing court is duty-bound to remove obstruction and deliver possession.
Final Decision
Dismissing both civil appeals, the Supreme Court upheld the Bombay High Court’s judgment and confirmed that the decree for possession is fully executable against subsequent purchasers.
The court found no legal infirmity in the execution orders directing removal of obstruction and delivery of possession to the decree holder, bringing an end to prolonged litigation that had stalled enforcement of a lawful decree for over 30 years.
Case Title:- Alka Shrirang Chavan & Anr. vs Hemchandra Rajaram Bhonsale & Ors.
