Inclusion of Transferee Pendente Lite

Source: Supreme Court 

Why in News? 

The bench of Justices Manoj Misra and Ujjal Bhuyan in the case of Alka Shrirang Chavan & Anr. v. Hemchandra Rajaram Bhonsale & Ors. (2026) 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, 1908 (CPC). 

What was the Background of Alka Shrirang Chavan & Anr. v. Hemchandra Rajaram Bhonsale & Ors. (2026) Case? 

• The dispute traces back to a 1973 agreement for sale between the original seller and buyer. 
• After the seller's default, a suit for specific performance was filed in 1986 by the Respondent No.1-original buyer. 
• The suit was decreed in 1990 in favor of the original buyer. 
• During the pendency of the suit, the judgment debtor-seller sold portions of the property to third parties. 
• The present appellants later derived title from these third parties who had purchased during litigation pendency. 
• This led to repeated obstruction in execution of the decree. 
• Execution proceedings began in 1991, and a court-commissioned sale deed was executed in 1993. 
• However, possession was blocked by the subsequent transferees. 
• 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. 
• This led to an appeal before the Supreme Court challenging these rejections. 

What were the Court's Observations? 

• The Court held that a transfer made during the pendency of a suit is hit by Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 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. 
• The appellant was left 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. 
• The Court observed that 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. 
• The Court noted that awareness is not even necessary, as the scope of adjudication is limited to whether the objector is a transferee pendente lite or not. 
• If the finding is in the affirmative, then such a transferee has no right to resist execution. 
• The Court affirmed 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, they would not be entitled to resist the execution of the decree. 
• The Court observed that now that the decree and conveyance in favour of respondent No. 1 have attained finality, the transferee pendente lite have to give way and hand over actual physical possession of the suit property to respondent No. 1. 
• The High Court had 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. 
• 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. 

What is Transferee Pendente Lite? 

• A transferee pendente lite is a person who acquires property during the pendency of litigation concerning that property. 
• The term "pendente lite" means "during the pendency of litigation." 
• Such transfers are governed by Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, which embodies the doctrine of lis pendens. 
• The doctrine provides that any transfer of property during the pendency of a suit is subject to the final decree in that suit. 
• The transferee pendente lite takes the property subject to all rights and liabilities as they may be finally determined in the pending litigation. 

What is  Order XXI Rule 97 CPC ? 

Order XXI Rule 97 CPC - Resistance or Obstruction to Possession: 

• Order XXI Rule 97 provides a remedy when possession of immovable property under a decree is resisted or obstructed. 
• Sub-rule (1) allows the decree holder or purchaser to file an application to the Court if any person resists or obstructs them in obtaining possession of immovable property. 
• The application can be filed by either the holder of a decree for possession of immovable property or the purchaser of such property sold in execution of a decree. 
• The remedy is available when there is actual resistance or obstruction by any person in obtaining possession. 
• Sub-rule (2) mandates that upon receiving such an application, the Court shall proceed to adjudicate upon it in accordance with the provisions contained in the rule. 
• This provision enables the decree holder to seek Court intervention to remove obstacles in taking possession of the property awarded by the decree. 
• The rule ensures that the successful party in litigation can effectively enforce their decree and obtain actual physical possession of the property.