No Shelter for Pendente Lite Buyers: Supreme Court Reaffirms That Transferees During Pending Litigation Cannot Block Decree Execution

EduLaw EditorialLandmark Judgements2026-06-27

The Supreme Court has decisively settled that purchasers who acquire property during ongoing litigation cannot resist execution of the decree. In a landmark ruling spanning five decades of dispute, the Court held that Section 19(b) of the Specific Relief Act must yield to Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act once a suit is instituted reaffirming the doctrine of lis pendens as a cornerstone of public policy. Case Name: Alka Shrirang Chavan & Anr. v. Hemchandra Rajaram Bhonsale & Ors. Case Number: Civil Appeal No. ___ of 2026 (arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 27660 of 2025) Court: Supreme Court of India Judges: Hon'ble Justice Manoj Misra and Hon'ble Justice Ujjal Bhuyan Judgment Date: January 12, 2026 Citation: 2026 INSC 52 ABSTRACT The Supreme Court of India, in Alka Shrirang Chavan & Anr. v. Hemchandra Rajaram Bhonsale & Ors. (2026 INSC 52), delivered a definitive pronouncement on the scope and amplitude of the doctrine of lis pendens as codified under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 . The dispute, stretching across five decades, involved a specific performance decree where the judgment debtor transferred suit property to third parties during the pendency of litigation. These subsequent purchasers — the appellants — resisted execution of the decree by claiming independent title. The Supreme Court dismissed both civil appeals and held unequivocally that a transferee pendente lite is bound by the decree as if a party to the original suit, cannot claim independent title, and cannot obstruct execution of the decree. The Court further clarified the interplay between Section 19(b) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 and Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act , holding that the former must yield to the latter once a suit is instituted. TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction and Background Facts of the Case Procedural History Issues for Determination Arguments of the Appellants Arguments of the Respondent (Decree Holder) Supreme Court's Analysis, Reasoning, and Ratio Decidendi Conclusion, Directions, and Implications INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND The doctrine of lis pendens — encapsulated in the Latin maxim "pendente lite nihil innovetur" (during the pendency of litigation, nothing new should be introduced) — serves as a foundational safeguard in property law jurisprudence. Codified under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 , this doctrine ensures that transfers made during the pendency of litigation affecting immovable property remain subservient to the final outcome of the suit. The present case, which traversed an extraordinary journey through the Indian judicial system for nearly four decades, presented the Supreme Court with an opportunity to restate, consolidate, and reinforce the legal principles governing pendente lite transfers. The core question was stark: can a person who purchases property after a suit for specific performance has been filed — and after a lis pendens notice has been registered — obstruct the execution of a decree by claiming independent title? The two-Judge Bench of Justice Manoj Misra and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan answered this question with resounding clarity, dismissing the appeals and directing immediate delivery of possession to the decree holder who had waited over three decades for the fruits of his litigation. FACTS OF THE CASE The factual matrix of this case unfolds across several decades and multiple transactions, presenting a complex web of property dealings conducted in the shadow of pending litigation. On 26 April 1973, Respondent No. 1 (the plaintiff and eventual decree holder) entered into an agreement for sale with the defendant Rajaram Bajirao Pokale (Respondent No. 2, the judgment debtor) for agricultural land bearing Survey No. 155, Pot Hissa 3, admeasuring 36 gunthas situated at village Dhayari, Taluka Haveli, District Pune. When the defendant failed to perform his contractual obligations, the plaintiff instituted Regular Civil Suit No. 910 of 1986 on 28 April 1986 before the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Pune, seeking specific performance of the agreement — namely, execution of the sale deed, and in the event of the defendant's failure, execution through the Court Commissioner along with delivery of vacant possession. Critically, on 2 May 1986, the plaintiff registered a notice of lis pendens, thereby placing the entire world on constructive notice that the suit property was subject to pending litigation. Despite the institution of the suit and registration of lis pendens, the judgment debtor (Respondent No. 2), between 7 May 1987 and 31 August 1987, executed eight separate registered sale deeds transferring the right, title, and interest in various parts of the suit property to different persons. In 1989, one of these transferees — Shri Sarangdhar — constructed a bungalow on a portion admeasuring 5R of the suit land. The appellants in the present matter, Alka Shrirang Chavan and Pradip Shrirang Chavan, later acquired 15 gunthas