Supreme Court Holds That Transferees Pendente Lite Cannot Obstruct Execution of a Decree for Specific Performance and Are Bound by the Doctrine of Lis Pendens Under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act

Case Name: Alka Shrirang Chavan & Anr. v. Hemchandra Rajaram Bhonsale & Ors.
Citation: 2026 INSC 52
Date of Judgment/Order: 12 January 2026
Bench: Justice Ujjal Bhuyan, Manoj Misra

Held: The Supreme Court held that transferees pendente lite who purchase immovable property during the pendency of a suit for specific performance, and after registration of a notice of lis pendens, are bound by the final decree and have no independent right to resist or obstruct execution of the decree for possession, as such transfers are subservient to the decree under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act and cannot defeat the rights of the decree holder.

Summary: The dispute arose from a decree for specific performance passed in 1990 in favour of the plaintiff, pursuant to which a sale deed was executed by a Court Commissioner in 1993. During the pendency of the original suit and thereafter, the judgment debtor executed multiple sale deeds in favour of third parties, from whom the appellants later derived title and raised constructions on parts of the suit property. When the decree holder sought possession decades later, the appellants obstructed execution claiming independent title as bona fide purchasers. The Supreme Court examined the doctrine of lis pendens under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, the scheme of Order XXI Rules 97 to 101 CPC (as amended in Maharashtra), and precedents including Celir LLP, Sanjay Verma, and Jayaram Mudaliar, and held that such transferees merely step into the shoes of the judgment debtor and are bound by the decree, irrespective of alleged good faith or subsequent developments.

Decision: The appeals were dismissed, the judgment of the Bombay High Court upholding the execution proceedings was affirmed, the objections raised by the transferees pendente lite were rejected, and the Executing Court was directed to proceed with delivery of possession to the decree holder in accordance with law, with all pending applications disposed of.