Order XXI Rule 102 CPC | Transferee Pendente Lite Has No Right To Obstruct Execution Of Decree : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court reaffirmed that a purchaser who acquires property during the pendency of litigation, as a transferee pendente lite, has no right to obstruct the execution of the decree and remains bound by the outcome of the proceedings, holding the transfer strictly subservient to the decree. A Bench of Justices Manoj Misra and Ujjal Bhuyan upheld the Bombay High Court's ruling dismissing the appeal filed by a transferee pendente lite, who had challenged the rejection of his objections to the execution of a decree for specific performance under Order XXI Rule 97 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC). The Court held that a transfer made during the pendency of a suit is hit by Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act and remains subject to the litigation's outcome. Since the appellant bought the property during the pendency of specific performance suit, the decree in favour of the buyer prevailed, leaving the appellant with no independent rights over the property, as well as to resist the execution of the decree due to the specific bar contained under Order XXI Rule 102 CPC. (See Tahir V. Isani vs. Madan Waman Chodankar)“Admittedly in the present case, the transfer of the suit property is pendente lite. Therefore, the doctrine of lis pendens as encapsulated in Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act is squarely applicable. All the courts have recorded a clear finding of fact that the appellants were fully aware of the pendency of the suit. However, even that is not necessary. As has been held by this Court in Silverline, the scope of adjudication is limited to the only question as to whether the objector who has resisted execution is a transferee pendente lite or not and if the finding is in the affirmative, then such a transferee has no right to resist.”, the court observed. The Case The dispute traces back to a 1973 agreement for sale. After the seller's default, a suit for specific performance was filed in 1986 by the Respondent No.1-original buyer, which was decreed in 1990. During the pendency of the suit, the judgment debtor-seller sold portions of the property to third parties, from whom the present appellants later derived title, leading to repeated obstruction in execution. Execution began in 1991, and a court-commissioned sale deed was executed in 1993, but possession was blocked. In 2019, the appellants obstructed the delivery of possession upon filing an application under Order XXI Rule 97 CPC. Their objections were rejected by the executing court, the First Appellate Court, and the Bombay High Court, leading to an appeal before the Supreme Court. Decision Affirming the impugned decision, the judgment authored by Justice Bhuyan observed that since the property was purchased by the Appellants during the pendency of the suit, and the decree being passed in favor of the original buyer, thus they won't be entitled to resist the execution of the decree, due to their position as a pendente lite transferee, and have to hand over the physical possession of the property to the original buyer. “Now that the decree and conveyance in favour of respondent No. 1 have attained finality, the transferee pendente lite i.e. the appellants have to give way and hand over actual physical possession of the suit property to respondent No. 1.”, the court said. The Court rejected the Appellants' reliance on Lala Durga Prasad Vs. Lala Deep Chand, (1953) 2 SCC 509, which validates the subsequent transfer if done before filing of the suit. Distinguishing this case with facts of the present case, the Court found it to have no application as the transfer was pendente lite i.e., made during the pendency of the suit. Approving the impugner order, the court observed: “the High Court held that if the subsequent transferee acquires right, title and interest with respect to the subject property before filing of the suit, the law laid down in Lala Durga Prasad would be applicable. In paragraph 41 of the impugned judgment, the High Court noted that since in the present case, the transfers are pendente lite, such transactions are covered by Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act and hence the law laid down in Lala Durga Prasad would have no application.” Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed, and while ordering the appellants to hand over possession by February 15, 2026, the Court took the extraordinary step of issuing a blanket injunction against future litigation.Related: Order XXI Rule 102 CPC Bar Not Applicable To Party Who Purchased Suit Property Not From Judgment-Debtor : Supreme CourtCause Title: ALKA SHRIRANG CHAVAN & ANR. VERSUS HEMCHANDRA RAJARAM BHONSALE & ORS.Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 44Click here to download judgmentAppearance: For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Shivaji M. Jadhav, AOR Mr. Vinay Navare, Sr. Adv. Mr. Shivaji M. Jadhav, Adv. Mr. R.d. Barve, Adv. Mr. Mahesh Barve, Adv. Mr. Brij Kishor Sah, Adv. Ms. Apurva, Adv. Mr. Vignesh Singh, Adv. Mr. Aditya S. Jadhav, Adv. For Respondent(s) :...

Order XXI Rule 102 CPC | Transferee Pendente Lite Has No Right To Obstruct Execution Of Decree : Supreme Court

Yash Mittal

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Order XXI Rule 102 CPC | Transferee Pendente Lite Has No Right To Obstruct Execution Of Decree : Supreme Court

Yash Mittal

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers