Order XXI Rule 102 CPC Explained: Supreme Court Bars Transferee Pendente Lite from Obstructing Decree Execution

Introduction

Execution of a court decree is the final and most crucial stage of civil litigation. A successful litigant does not truly “win” until the decree is effectively executed. However, decree execution is often obstructed by third parties claiming independent rights over the property, particularly when property is transferred during the pendency of litigation.

In a significant and clarificatory judgment, the Supreme Court of India has once again reaffirmed a long-settled principle of law: a transferee pendente lite (a purchaser during the pendency of a suit) has no right to obstruct execution of a decree.

In Alka Shrirang Chavan & Anr. v. Hemchandra Rajaram Bhonsale & Ors. (2026 INSC 52), a Division Bench of Justice Manoj Misra and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan interpreted Order XXI Rule 102 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) in light of the doctrine of lis pendens under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (TPA). The Court barred transferees pendente lite from resisting execution proceedings and directed delivery of possession to the decree holder.

Background of the Case

The dispute traces its origin to an agreement for sale executed in 1973 concerning immovable property in Maharashtra.

Timeline of Events

1. 1973 – Agreement for sale executed.

2. 1986 – Plaintiff filed a civil suit for specific performance due to failure of the vendor to execute the sale deed.

3. A notice of lis pendens was registered soon after filing the suit.

4. During pendency of the suit, the judgment-debtor transferred portions of the suit property to third parties through registered sale deeds.

5. One transferee even constructed a permanent structure on part of the land.

6. 1990 – Suit decreed in favour of the plaintiff, directing execution of the sale deed and delivery of vacant possession.

7. 1993 – Executing Court authorised execution of the sale deed through a Court Commissioner.

8. All challenges by the judgment-debtor failed; the decree attained finality.

9. When execution reached the stage of delivery of possession, the subsequent purchasers obstructed execution, claiming independent ownership.

This obstruction ultimately reached the Supreme Court.

Key Legal Issue Before the Supreme Court

The core legal question was:

Can a transferee pendente lite resist or obstruct execution of a decree for possession under Order XXI CPC?

To answer this, the Court examined:

1. Order XXI Rules 97 to 102 CPC

2. Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act

3. Section 19(b) of the Specific Relief Act

4. Previous Supreme Court precedents

Understanding the Doctrine of Lis Pendens

What Is Lis Pendens?

The doctrine of lis pendens is embodied in Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. It means:

When a property is the subject matter of a pending lawsuit, it cannot be transferred in a manner that defeats the rights of the other party.

Purpose of the Doctrine

The Supreme Court reiterated that lis pendens is based on:

1. Equity

2. Good conscience

3. Public policy

Its purpose is to prevent parties from frustrating judicial proceedings by transferring property during litigation.

Important Clarification by the Court

The Court clearly stated:

1. Transfer pendente lite is not illegal or void ab initio

2. However, such transfer is subservient to the final outcome of the suit

3. The transferee is bound by the decree, even without notice of the suit

Maharashtra Law and Registration of Notice of Pendency

In Maharashtra, registration of a notice of pendency is required under state amendments. The Supreme Court explained:

1. Registration benefits:

   1. The litigating party by strengthening lis pendens protection

   2. Third parties by enabling due diligence

2. However, absence of registration does not give an absolute right to a purchaser

The Court warned that allowing purchasers to escape lis pendens merely due to lack of registration would:

1. Undermine judicial authority

2. Encourage unscrupulous transactions

3. Defeat the very object of Section 52 TPA

Order XXI Rules 97 to 102 CPC: Explained Simply

Rule 97 – Resistance to Execution

When resistance or obstruction occurs during execution, the decree holder can apply to the executing court.

Rule 101 – Adjudication of Rights

All questions relating to:

1. Right, title, or interest in the property

2. Arising between the parties to the obstruction

Must be decided by the executing court itself—no separate suit required.

Rule 102 – The Crucial Bar

Order XXI Rule 102 CPC provides:

Nothing in Rules 98 and 100 shall apply to resistance or obstruction by a transferee pendente lite.

Supreme Court’s Interpretation

The Court held:

1. If the objector is found to be a transferee pendente lite

2. The executing court’s inquiry is limited to that single question

3. Once confirmed, no further adjudication is permissible

4. The transferee has no right to resist execution

This interpretation is consistent with earlier judgments such as Silverline Forum Pvt. Ltd. v. Rajiv Trust.

Section 19(b) of the Specific Relief Act vs Section 52 TPA

The appellants relied on Section 19(b) of the Specific Relief Act, which protects bona fide purchasers without notice.

The Supreme Court clarified:

1. Section 19(b) applies before institution of a suit

2. Once a suit is filed, Section 52 TPA overrides Section 19(b)

3. After litigation begins, lis pendens takes full effect

Thus, purchasers after filing of the suit cannot claim protection, regardless of good faith.

Rejection of the Lala Durga Prasad Argument

The appellants relied heavily on the Supreme Court decision in Lala Durga Prasad v. Deep Chand.

The Court rejected this reliance, holding:

1. In Lala Durga Prasad, the sale occurred before filing of the suit

2. Section 52 TPA was not applicable in that case

3. In the present case, transfers were pendente lite

4. Hence, Lala Durga Prasad had no application

The Supreme Court fully endorsed the Bombay High Court’s reasoning on this point.

Findings of the Supreme Court

The Court made several critical findings:

1. Transferees pendente lite are bound by the decree

2. Notice or knowledge of the suit is irrelevant

3. Scope of adjudication under Order XXI is limited

4. Executing court acted correctly in removing obstruction

5. Decree holder is entitled to actual physical possession

Final Directions of the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court issued clear and firm directions:

1. Appellants must hand over actual physical possession of the suit property

2. Deadline fixed as 15 February 2026

3. No further applications or petitions concerning the property will be entertained

4. Appeals dismissed with no costs

This finality ensures judicial efficiency and prevents endless litigation.

Practical Impact of the Judgment

For Property Buyers

1. Always conduct litigation due diligence

2. Check court records, not just title documents

3. Buying disputed property carries serious legal risk

For Decree Holders

1. Strengthens enforcement of decrees

2. Limits obstruction tactics by third parties

3. Ensures faster execution

For Lawyers and Courts

1. Clear guidance on handling objections under Order XXI

2. Reduces misuse of execution proceedings

Why This Judgment Matters

This ruling reinforces:

1. Sanctity of court decrees

2. Authority of executing courts

3. Stability in property transactions

4. Judicial discipline and finality

It sends a strong message that courts will not tolerate attempts to defeat justice through pendente lite transfers.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s interpretation of Order XXI Rule 102 CPC in Alka Shrirang Chavan v. Hemchandra Rajaram Bhonsale is a landmark reaffirmation of settled principles governing execution of decrees and property litigation.

By harmonising the CPC with the doctrine of lis pendens, the Court has protected decree holders, discouraged speculative property transactions, and upheld the rule of law.

For anyone dealing with property disputes or execution proceedings, this judgment serves as a clear legal roadmap—litigation cannot be sidestepped by clever transfers, and justice will ultimately prevail.

Case Details

• Case Title: Alka Shrirang Chavan & Anr. v. Hemchandra Rajaram Bhonsale & Ors.

• Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 52

• Bench: Justice Manoj Misra & Justice Ujjal Bhuyan

• Decision Date: 2026