Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Court | Supreme Court of India |
| Case Number | SLP(C) No.-027660 – 2025 |
| Diary Number | 44153/2025 |
| Judge Name | HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN |
| Bench | HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN & HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ MISRA |
| Concurring or Dissenting Judges | HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ MISRA (concurring) |
| Precedent Value | Authoritative interpretation of lis pendens and execution procedure |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms existing precedent |
| Type of Law | Civil Procedure Code; Transfer of Property Act; Specific Relief Act |
| Questions of Law |
|
| Ratio Decidendi |
The Court held that transfers pendente lite are subservient to a final decree under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, so subsequent purchasers cannot resist execution. An executing court, under Section 47 CPC and Order XXI Rules 97–102, has exclusive jurisdiction to adjudicate all title and possession disputes arising on resistance, without separate suit. The sale deed executed by the court commissioner on final decree vests valid title in the decree-holder despite non-impleading of subsequent transferees. Lala Durga Prasad is distinguishable, as that involved pre-suit transfers. |
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|---|
| Celir LLP v. Somati Prasad Bafna (2024); Silverline Forum v. Rajiv Trust (1998); NSS Narayana Sarma v. Goldstone Exports (2002); Usha Sinha v. Dina Ram (2008); Jayaram Mudaliar v. Ayyaswami (1972); Sanjay Verma v. Manik Roy (2006); Danesh Singh v. Har Pyari (2025); Thomson Press v. Nanak Builders (2013); Lala Durga Prasad v. Lala Deep Chand (1953) |
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court |
|---|
| Doctrine of lis pendens under Section 52 TPA; interplay with Section 19(b) SRA; Section 47 CPC; Order XXI Rules 97–102 CPC; Bombay amendments; principles of equity and public policy. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
|---|
| Plaintiff sued for specific performance of a sale agreement (1973); lis pendens registered (1986); judgment debtor made pendente lite transfers (1987); suit decreed (1990) and sale deed executed by court commissioner (1993); decree holder sought possession warrant (2018) but was resisted by subsequent purchasers (2019); executing court removed obstruction (2020) and all appeals were dismissed. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | Executing courts under Order XXI CPC |
| Persuasive For | High Courts |
| Distinguishes | Lala Durga Prasad v. Lala Deep Chand (1953)—pre-suit transfers not governed by lis pendens doctrine |
| Follows | Celir LLP v. Somati Prasad Bafna (2024); Silverline Forum v. Rajiv Trust (1998); Danesh Singh v. Har Pyari (2025); Usha Sinha v. Dina Ram (2008) |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Transferees pendente lite are automatically bound by a final decree under Section 52 TPA and have no right to resist execution.
- Order XXI Rules 97–102 CPC confer exclusive jurisdiction on the executing court to determine title, right and interest disputes in possession proceedings.
- A sale deed executed by the court commissioner on a final decree vests valid title in the decree-holder without impleading subsequent purchasers.
- Bombay amendments extend executing court’s powers to award compensation alongside removal of obstruction.
- Under Article 142, the Supreme Court barred any further litigation on the suit property after three decades to secure the decree-holder’s rights.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- Section 52 TPA and lis pendens: Any transfer of immovable property pendente lite is subservient to a final decree; transferees need not have actual or constructive notice to be bound.
- Section 19(b) SRA applies only to pre-suit bona fide purchasers for value without notice; once a suit is pending, lis pendens prevails.
- Section 47 CPC mandates that all execution-related questions between parties and their representatives be adjudicated by the executing court.
- Order XXI Rules 97–102 CPC provide procedure for resisting execution, adjudication of title, removal of obstruction, and allow civil imprisonment and compensation; Bombay amendments reinforce notice and compensation mechanisms.
- Precedents (Celir LLP; Silverline; Danesh Singh; Usha Sinha) confirm that transferees pendente lite cannot resist execution; Lala Durga Prasad is inapplicable where transfers occur after suit institution.
Arguments by the Parties
Appellants (subsequent purchasers)
- Claimed bona fide purchases pendente lite; sale deed by commissioner was invalid without their joinder.
- Invoked Section 47 CPC and Order XXI Rule 101 to assert right to have title disputes adjudicated in execution.
- Urged that Section 52 TPA does not annul transfers and that executing court should have determined their title.
- Raised delay and limitation issues under Articles 129 and 134 Limitation Act.
Respondent (decree-holder)
- Argued lis pendens under Section 52 TPA binds transferees pendente lite, extinguishing their title.
- Decree and execution sale deed attained finality; subsequent purchasers had no locus to resist.
- Pointed to exclusive jurisdiction of executing court under Order XXI Rules 97–102 CPC to remove obstruction.
- Distinguished Lala Durga Prasad, as that involved pre-suit transfers not governed by lis pendens.
- Demonstrated that application for removal of obstruction was filed within 30 days of resistance (Article 129 Limitation Act).
Factual Background
In 1973, the plaintiff and judgment debtor entered into an agreement for sale. The plaintiff sued for specific performance in 1986 and registered lis pendens. During the pendency (1987) the debtor transferred parts of the suit land to various purchasers, including the appellants. The suit was decreed in 1990 and a sale deed executed by the court commissioner in 1993. When the decree-holder sought physical possession in 2019, the appellants resisted; the executing court removed the obstruction in 2020 and subsequent appeals were dismissed at every level.
Statutory Analysis
- Section 52 TPA: Enshrines lis pendens; pendency bars transfers affecting rights under any decree, from plaint filing to decree satisfaction.
- Section 19 SRA: Allows specific performance against subsequent title-holders except bona fide purchasers for value without notice; overridden post-suit by lis pendens.
- Section 47 CPC: Requires executing court to determine all questions relating to execution, discharge or satisfaction of a decree between parties and representatives.
- Order XXI Rules 97–102 CPC: Prescribe procedure for dealing with resistance or obstruction to delivery of immovable property under a decree, adjudication of title disputes, removal of obstruction, civil imprisonment and compensation; Bombay amendments refine notice requirements and compensation powers.
Procedural Innovations
The Supreme Court, invoking Article 142, prohibited any further applications or petitions concerning the suit property to prevent perpetual litigation and ensure the decree-holder finally obtains possession.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed