Does Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act bar pendente lite transferees from resisting execution of a specific‐performance decree?

Summary

Practical Impact

What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note

• Confirms that pendente lite transferees are subservient to a decree for specific performance and cannot resist execution under lis pendens.
• Clarifies that Section 19(b) Specific Relief Act does not protect subsequent purchasers once a suit is instituted and Section 52 TP Act applies.
• Emphasizes the executing court’s exclusive jurisdiction under Order XXI Rules 97–101 CPC to adjudicate objections by obstructionists.
• Affirms that failure to join pendente lite transferees in the court-executed sale deed does not invalidate the transfer to a decree-holder whose decree is final.
• Illustrates effective use of Bombay amendments to reinforce notice requirements without undermining the lis pendens doctrine.
• Illustrates the use of Article 142 Constitution to bar further vexatious litigation after three decades of procedural rounds.

Summary of Legal Reasoning

1. Section 52 TP Act (lis pendens): During pendency of a suit in which immovable property is directly in question, any pendente lite transfer is subject to the final decree; transferees need not have notice to be bound.
2. Section 19(b) Specific Relief Act: Protects bona fide purchasers without notice only prior to suit; yields to Section 52 once suit is on record.
3. Section 47 CPC: All execution-related questions between original parties or their representatives must be decided by the executing court, barring separate suits.
4. Order XXI Rules 97–101 CPC:
   • Rule 97: Permits decree-holder to complain of resistance or obstruction by “any person.”
   • Rule 98: After adjudication, court must direct possession to decree-holder and may impose imprisonment or compensation for wrongful obstruction.
   • Rule 101: Empowering executing court to determine all relevant questions of right, title, and interest arising on an application under Rule 97.
5. Bombay Amendments: Require registration of lis pendens notice (Section 52) and extend Rule 98’s penalties; do not permit pendente lite transferees to resist execution once rights are adjudicated.
6. Precedent Analysis: Followed Silverline, Celir LLP, Danesh Singh, NSS Narayana Sarma; distinguished Lala Durga Prasad as non-pendente lite fact scenario.

Arguments by the Parties

Appellants (Obstructionists / Subsequent Purchasers)

• Purchased part of suit land in 1987 during pendency of suit and lis pendens.
• Registered sale deed executed by court-commissioner in 1993 failed to join transferee pendente lite, thus defective.
• Acquired valid title under Section 52 TP Act; entitled to object to possession warrant in 2019.
• Execution application filed after 27 years is barred by limitation (Articles 129 and 134 Limitation Act).

Respondent No. 1 (Decree-Holder)

• Doctrine of lis pendens binds pendente lite transferees; their title is extinguished on final decree.
• Executing court correctly adjudicated rights under Order XXI Rules 97–101 and directed removal of obstruction.
• Section 19(b) is inapplicable once suit is filed; Celir LLP, Silverline et al. confirm no need to join transferees in execution.
• Limitation objection is baseless; possession application was filed within 30 days of obstruction (Article 129 Limitation Act).

Factual Background

Respondent No. 1 contracted to purchase immovable property in 1973 but sued for specific performance in April 1986 and registered lis pendens. Between May and August 1987, judgment-debtor transferred plots to various buyers, including appellants. Trial court decreed specific performance in November 1990 and court-commissioner executed sale deed in March 1993. Facing decades of delayed execution, respondent No. 1 obtained a possession warrant for January 2019 but was obstructed by appellants. The executing court removed the obstruction in February 2020, and all subsequent appeals up to the High Court were dismissed in December 2024.

Statutory Analysis

• Section 52, Transfer of Property Act: Bars transfers pendente lite from affecting rights under a final decree; notice requirement under Maharashtra amendment enhances lis pendens effectiveness without creating an escape for transferees.
• Section 19(b), Specific Relief Act: Excludes bona fide purchasers without notice only prior to suit; gives way to Section 52 after suit initiation.
• Section 47 CPC: Mandates executing court to decide all execution-related questions between parties or their representatives.
• Order XXI Rules 97–101 CPC: Provide mechanism for a decree-holder to seek removal of resistance/obstruction by “any person,” grant the executing court authority to determine disputes on title and deliver possession, and penalize wrongful obstruction.
• Bombay Amendments: Require registration of lis pendens notice (Section 52) and empower executing court to impose imprisonment and compensation (Rule 98).

Procedural Innovations

• Invoked Article 142 Constitution to bar any further proceedings or petitions by any party or transferee relating to the suit property after three decades of litigation.
• Consolidated multiple execution and appeal stages into a final decree for possession by the executing court with binding directions.

Alert Indicators

• ✔ Precedent Followed – reaffirmed longstanding lis pendens doctrine.