Supreme Court: Purchasers pendente lite can not resist execution of a decree for specific performance of contract and possession on the ground that they were not joined in the conveyance or execution proceedings

 It was clear as day light that the rights of the Appellants who are subsequent purchasers were subservient to the rights of the decree holder. After the judgment and decree of the trial court and following execution of the sale deed by the Court Commissioner, a valid title qua the suit property passed on to Respondent No. 1 (decree holder). Admittedly in the present case, the transfer of the suit property was pendente lite. Therefore, the doctrine of lis pendens as encapsulated in Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act was squarely applicable. All the courts have recorded a clear finding of fact that the Appellants were fully aware of the pendency of the suit. However, even that is not necessary. As has been held by this Court in Silverline, the scope of adjudication is limited to the only question as to whether the objector who has resisted execution is a transferee pendente lite or not and if the finding is in the affirmative, then such a transferee has no right to resist. In so far the present case is concerned, the rights of the Appellants have been duly adjudicated under Order 21 Rules 97 to 102 Code of Civil Procedure to the complete satisfaction of the Executing Court. That being the position, there was no merit at all in the case projected by the Appellants and the Executing Court rightly passed the order.

(ii) The point of limitation was nowhere pleaded by the Appellants including before the High Court. In fact, no such substantial question of law was framed by the High Court. All throughout the proceedings, it was the case of the Appellants that they being subsequent purchasers, they ought to have been brought on record while executing the sale deed and also during execution proceeding. As already noted above, Appellants being transferee pendente lite, the doctrine of lis pendens applies with full force to them. That apart, Respondent No. 1 (decree holder) had sought for execution within a period of one year from the date of the judgment and decree of the trial court.

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal No. ... of 2026 (Arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 27660 of 2025).

Decided On: 12.01.2026

Alka Shrirang Chavan and Ors. Vs. Hemchandra Rajaram Bhonsale and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Manoj Misra and Ujjal Bhuyan, JJ.

Author: Ujjal Bhuyan, J.

Citation: 2026 SCC Online SC 55, 2026 INSC 52,MANU/SC/0058/2026.

Print Page

Execution of decree and obstruction to its execution

 Execution is the process by which a decree-holder enforces a decree through the civil court. The law on execution is contained mainly in Sections 36 to 74 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and the detailed procedure is laid down in Order 21of  CPC.

A decree may be executed by the court which passed it, or by the court to which it is transferred for execution under Section 38 CPC. The decree-holder initiates the process by filing an execution application under Order 21 Rules 10 and 11 CPC, after which the court adopts the mode of execution permitted by law.

Print Page

Supreme Court Summarises Principles regarding rights of Transferee Pendente Lite To Get Impleaded In Suit As A Matter Of Right

 58. From a conspectus of all the aforesaid judgments, touching upon the present aspect, broadly, the following would emerge:

i. First, for the purpose of impleading a transferee pendente lite, the facts and circumstances should be gone into and basing on the necessary facts, the Court can permit such a party to come on record, either Under Order I Rule 10 Code of Civil Procedure or Under Order XXII Rule 10 Code of Civil Procedure, as a general principle;

ii. Secondly, a transferee pendente lite is not entitled to come on record as a matter of right;

iii. Thirdly, there is no absolute Rule that such a transferee pendente lite, with the leave of the Court should, in all cases, be allowed to come on record as a party;

iv. Fourthly, the impleadment of a transferee pendente lite would depend upon the nature of the suit and appreciation of the material available on record;

v. Fifthly, where a transferee pendente lite does not ask for leave to come on record, that would obviously be at his peril, and the suit may be improperly conducted by the Plaintiff on record;

vi. Sixthly, merely because such transferee pendente lite does not come on record, the concept of him (transferee pendente lite) not being bound by the judgment does not arise and consequently he would be bound by the result of the litigation, though he remains unrepresented;

vii. Seventhly, the sale transaction pendente lite is hit by the provisions of Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act; and,

viii. Eighthly, a transferee pendente lite, being an assignee of interest in the property, as envisaged Under Order XXII Rule 10 Code of Civil Procedure, can seek leave of the Court to come record on his own or at the instance of either party to the suit.

61. If the Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 feel that they have been duped or cheated by the Respondent No. 7/Defendant No. 3, then it shall be open for them to avail appropriate legal remedy before the appropriate forum in accordance with law for the purpose of recovery of the amount towards sale consideration paid at the time of execution of the sale deed.

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal Nos. 1180-1181 of 2025.

Decided On: 29.01.2025

H. Anjanappa and Ors. Vs. A. Prabhakar and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan, JJ.

Author: J.B. Pardiwala, J.

Citation:  MANU/SC/0118/2025.

Read full Judgment here: Click here.

Print Page

Supreme Court Lays Down Principles : When Can Stranger To Suit Seek Leave To Appeal Against Decree?

43. The principles governing the grant of leave to appeal may be summarised as under:

i. Sections 96 and 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure respectively provide for preferring an appeal from an original decree or decree in appeal respectively;

ii. The said provisions do not enumerate the categories of persons who can file an appeal;

iii. However, it a settled legal proposition that a stranger cannot be permitted to file an appeal in any proceedings unless he satisfies the court that he falls within the category of an aggrieved person;

iv. It is only where a judgment and decree prejudicially affects a person who is not a party to the proceedings, he can prefer an appeal with the leave of the court;

v. A person aggrieved, to file an appeal, must be one whose right is affected by reason of the judgment and decree sought to be impugned;

vi. The expression "person aggrieved" does not include a person who suffers from a psychological or an imaginary injury;

vii. It would be improper to grant leave to appeal to every person who may in some remote or indirect way be prejudicially affected by a decree or judgment; and

viii. Ordinarily leave to appeal should be granted to persons who, though not parties to the proceedings, would be bound by the decree or judgment in that proceeding and who would be precluded from attacking its correctness in other proceedings.

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal Nos. 1180-1181 of 2025.

Decided On: 29.01.2025

H. Anjanappa and Ors. Vs. A. Prabhakar and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan, JJ.

Author: J.B. Pardiwala, J.

Citation:  MANU/SC/0118/2025.

Print Page

Whether purchaser pendente lite can put evidence on record to prove that he was unaware of pendency of litigation?

The learned senior counsel appearing for the

petitioners was not justified in contending that even if it

was to be held that there was a presumption against

the petitioners about being aware of the litigation

initiated by respondent nos. 1 and 2 before a competent

Court, such a presumption was rebuttable and that if the

view taken by the Executing Court was accepted,

Section 19(b) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 would be

rendered otiose. A proper reading of the judgments of

the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Usha

Sinha .vs. Dina Ram (supra) and Silverline Forum

Pvt. Ltd. .vs. Rajiv Trust (supra) would show that a

presumption referred to therein is not a presumption in

the sense of it being rebuttable, but a situation where a

transferee who purchases property during the pendency

of the suit, is deemed to be aware of a litigation

pertaining to the said property pending before the

competent Court. Such a transferee , cannot claim a

right to show evidence that he was actually not aware or

put to notice about pendency of such a litigation. In

fact, Rules 98 and 100 of Order 21 as amended by the

Bombay Amendment, addressed this very mischief that

can be indulged in by transferees pendente lite.

Therefore, the petitioners cannot claim that they had a

right at least to place on record evidence to show that

they were actually not aware about the pendency of the

litigation, even if they had purchased the property

during the pendency of the suit filed by respondent nos.

1 and 2 or that there was a rebuttal presumption that

arose in the present matter. Similarly, the petitioners

are not entitled to claim that Section 19(b) of the

Specific Relief Act, 1963 would be rendered otiose,

because they cannot be said to be transferees who paid

money in good faith and without notice of the original

contract, because they were deemed to be aware of the

same as they had purchased the property during the

pendency of the suit filed by respondent nos. 1 and 2.

Therefore, there is no substance in the contentions

raised on behalf of the petitioners.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR.

Writ Petition No.4406 OF 2018

(M/s Sharma Construction Company, Nagpur vs. Praveenkumar Lilapat Bansal and others. )

CORAM : MANISH PITALE, J.

DATED : APRIL 10, 2019
Citation: 2019(5) MHLJ 499

Print Page

Whether transferee pendent lite can be added as party to suit if declaration is sought in respect of property transferred to him?

 I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions advanced at bar by learned counsel for both the parties and also to the legal position, as set out by the Apex Court in the case of Amit Kumar Shaw (Supra). In paragraph No. 12 of the said Judgment, it was held as follows :-

"12. Under Order 22 Rule 10, no detailed inquiry at the stage of granting leave is contemplated. The Court has only to be prima facie satisfied for exercising its discretion in granting leave for continuing the suit by or against the person on whom the interest has devolved by assignment or devolution. The question about the existence and validity of the assignment or devolution can be considered at the final hearing of the proceedings. The Court has only to be prima facie satisfied for exercising its discretion in granting leave for continuing the suit."

8. Whereas, in paragraph No. 16 of the said Judgment, it was held as follows :-

"16. The doctrine of lis pendens applies only where the lis is pending before a court. Further pending the suit, the transferee is not entitled as of right to be made a party to the suit, though the court has a discretion to make him a party. But the transferee pendente lite can be added as a proper party, if his interest in the subject-matter of the suit is substantial and not just peripheral. A transferee pendente lite to the extent he has acquired interest from the defendant is vitally interested in the litigation, where the transfer is of the entire interest of the defendant; the latter having no more interest in the property may not properly defend the suit. He may collude with the plaintiff. Hence, though the plaintiff is under no obligation to make a lis pendens transferee a party, under Order 22 Rule 10, an alienee pendente lite may be joined as party. As already noticed, the court has discretion in the matter, which must be judicially exercised and an alienee would ordinarily be joined as a party to enable him to protect his interests. The court has held that a transferee pendente lite of an interest in immovable property is a representative-in-interest of the party from whom he has acquired that interest. He is entitled to be impleaded in the suit or other proceedings where his predecessor-in-interest is made a party to the litigation; he is entitled to be heard in the matter on the merits of the case."

[Emphasis Supplied]

9. Thus, as per this legal position, at the stage of deciding the application for impleadment filed by the alienee, the Trial Court has only to be prima facie satisfied as to whether such alienation has really taken place and whether the presence of such alienee will help to protect the interest of the Defendants.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY

Writ Petition No. 687 of 2015

Decided On: 30.01.2018

 Siddhi Promoters  Vs.  Anita Krishnarao Shirolkar and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Dr. Shalini Phansalkar Joshi, J.

Citation: 2018(3) MHLJ 595

Print Page

When court should permit transferee pendente lite to be added as party in suit?

 From the foregoing facts as stated by the
petitioner in the petition, all rights claimed by the
respondent nos. 3 and 4 over the suit property have been
allegedly transferred in favour of the petitioner. In the
background of such facts, it would be necessary to consider
whether the petitioner is entitled to be impleaded in the suit
filed by the respondent nos. 1 and 2. Taking note of the
reliefs sought in the suit filed by respondent nos. 1 and 2, it
cannot be disputed that the relief if granted therein would
affect the right claimed by the petitioner over the suit
property. In this context, the observations of the Apex Court
in the judgment reported in (2006)9 SCC page 199 in the
case of Devendra Kumar Sarewgee and others V/s
Purbanchal Estates (P) Ltd., and others, at paras 11 and
12 would be relevant which read thus :
“11. This Court after detailed
consideration of the case-law in Raj
Kumar V/s Sardari Lal has held that the
transferee pendente lite is treated in the
eye of the law as a representative-ininterest
of the judgment-debtor and
bound by the decree passed against the
judgment-debtor. In case of an
assignment, creation or devolution of any
interest during the pendency of any suit,
Order 22 Rule 10 CPC confers a discretion
on the court hearing the suit to grant
leave to the person in or upon whom such
interest has come to vest or devolve to be:9:
brought on record. Bringing on a lis
pendens transferee on record is not as of
right but in the discretion of the court.
12. To the similar effect is the judgment
of this court in Amit Kumar Shaw V/s
Farida Khatoon. It has been observed as
follows : (SCC p. 411)
“The doctrine of lis pendens applies
only where the lis is pending before a
Court. Further pending the suit, the
transferee is not entitled as of right to be
made a party to the suit, though the
Court has a discretion to make him a
party. But the transferee pendente lite
can be added as a proper party if his
interest in the subject-matter of the suit is
substantial and not just peripheral. A
transferee pendente lite to the extent he
has acquired interest from the defendant
is vitally interested in the litigation,
whether the transfer is of the entire
interest of the defendant; the latter
having no more interest in the property
may not properly defend the suit. He may
collude with the plaintiff. Hence, though
the plaintiff is under no obligation to make
a lis pendens transferee a party; under
Order 22 Rule 10 an alienee pendente lite
may be joined as party. As already
noticed, the Court has discretion in the
matter which must be judicially exercised
and an alienee would ordinarily be joined
as a party to enable him to protect his
interests. The Court has held that a
transferee pendente lite of an interest in
immovable property is a representativein-interest
of the party from whom he has
acquired that interest. He is entitled to be
impleaded in the suit or other proceedings
where the transferee pendente lite is
made a party to the litigation; he is
entitled to be heard in the matter on the
merits of the case” .
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA
WRIT PETITION NO. 564 OF 2007
Krishnan Venugopal,

V 
 Antonio Joao A. Braganza,

CORAM : F. M. REIS, J
DATE : 5th SEPTEMBER, 2012.
Citation:(2012)6 ALLMR 934: 2013(1) MHLJ435

Print Page

Basic principles when court should permit impleadment of transferee pendents lite in suit for specific performance of contract

 Taking upon  the conspectus of the  view  taken by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the earlier judgments, in the   case of
Vidur Impex  & Traders Pvt.Ltd.  vs.   Tosh  Apartments Pvt.Ltd.
And others : (2012) 8 SCC 384 finally in paragraph 41, the Apex
Court  laid down the following principles:
“41. Though there is   apparent   conflict   in
the   observations   made   in   some   of   the
aforementioned   judgments,   the   broad   principles
which should  govern disposal of an application for
impleadment  are :

41.1 The   court   can,     at   any   stage   of   the
proceedings, either on an application made by the
parties or otherwise, direct   impleadment of any
person as party,  who ought to have been joined   as
plaintiff  or defendant or whose presence before the
court   is     necessary   for   effective       and   complete
adjudication  of the issues involved in the suit.
41.2 A   necessary  party  is  the person  who
ought to be joined as party to the suit and in whose
absence   an effective decree   cannot be passed by
the court.
41.3 A   proper   party   is     a   person   whose
presence   would   enable   the   court   to   completely,
effectively and properly adjudicate upon all matters
and   issues,   though   he   may     not   be   a   person   in
favour  of or against whom a decree is to be made.
41.4 If a person is not found to be  a proper
or   necessary   party,   the   court   does   not   have   the
jurisdiction to order his impleadment   against the
wishes  of the plaintiff.

41.5 In a  suit  for   specific performance,
the court can order impleadment   of a purchaser
whose   conduct   is   above   board,   and   who   files
application   for   being joined   as   party within
reasonable time of his acquiring knowledge about
the pending litigation. (emphasis supplied)
41.6 However,   if the applicant is guilty of
contumacious     conduct     or is     beneficiary   of a
clandestine   transaction or a transaction made   by
the owner   of the suit property   in violation of the
restraint   order   passed   by   the   court   or   the
application is unduly  delayed    then the court will
be   fully     justified   in   declining   the   prayer   for
impleadment.”
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
 BENCH AT NAGPUR 

WRIT PETITION NO: 5541 /2013 
 Shrikrushna   Narayan  Tupkari v Mahadeo   s/o Bansilal  Dahale

CORAM:   A.B.CHAUDHARI, J.
DATED  :   27th February,  2014 
Citation:2014 (4) MHLJ 393

Print Page

Whether transferee pendente lite can seek partition in final decree proceeding?

Countering the said document, learned Counsel for Defendants 9 and 10, relied on the Judgment of the Apex Court in the case of 'Khemchand Shankar Choudhary and Another v. Vishnu Hari Patil and Others' reported in MANU/SC/0168/1982 : 1983 [1] SCC 18, where dealing with the purchaser pendente lite, locus standi to claim equitable partition before the Collector in Final Decree Proceedings under section 54 of the Civil Procedure Code, it was held as under:

"Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act no doubt lays down that a transferee pendente lite of an interest in an immovable property which is the subject matter of a suit from any of the parties to the suit will be bound in so far as that interest is concerned by the proceedings in the suit. Such a transferee is a representative in interest of the party from whom he has acquired that interest. Rule 10 of Order 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure clearly recognises the right of a transferee to be impleaded as a party to the proceedings and to be heard before any order is made. It may be that if he does not apply to be impleaded, he may suffer by default on account of any order passed in the proceedings. But if he applies to be impleaded as a party and to be heard, he has got to be so impleaded and heard. He can also prefer an appeal against an order made in the said proceedings but with the leave of the appellate court where he is not already brought on record. The position of a person on whom any interest has devolved on account of a transfer during the pendency of any suit or a proceeding is somewhat similar to the position of an heir or a legatee of a party who dies during the pendency of a suit or a proceeding, or an official receiver who takes over the assets of such a party on his insolvency. An heir or a legatee or an official receiver or a transferee can participate in the execution proceedings even though their names may not have been shown in the decree, preliminary or final. If they apply to the court to be impleaded as parties they cannot be turned out. The Collector who has to effect partition of an estate under section 54 of the Code of Civil Procedure has no doubt to divide it in accordance with the decree sent to him. But if a party to such a decree dies leaving some heirs about whose interest there is no dispute should he fold up his hands and return the papers to the civil court? He need not do so. He may proceed to allot the share of the deceased party to his heirs. Similarly he may, when there is no dispute, allot the shares of a deceased party in favour of his legatees. In the case of insolvency of a party, the official receiver may be allotted the share of the insolvent. In the case of transferees pendente lite also, if there is no dispute, the Collector may proceed to make allotment of properties in an equitable manner instead of rejecting their claim for such equitable partition on the ground that they have no locus standi. A transferee from a party of a property which is the subject matter of partition can exercise all the rights of the transferor. There is no dispute that a party can ask for an equitable partition. A transferee from him, therefore, can also do so. Such a construction of section 54 of the Code of Civil Procedure advances the cause of justice. Otherwise in every case where a party dies, or where a party is adjudicated as an insolvent or where he transfers some interest in the suit property pendente lite the matter has got to be referred back to the civil court even though there may be no dispute about the succession, devolution or transfer of interest. In any such case where there is no dispute if the Collector makes an equitable partition taking into consideration the interests of all concerned including those on whom any interest in the subject matter has devolved, he would neither be violating the decree nor transgressing any law. His action would not be ultra vires. On the other hand, it would be in conformity with the intention of the Legislature which has placed the work of partition of lands subject to payment of assessment to the Government in his hands to be carried out 'in accordance with the law (if any) for the time being in force relating to the partition or the separate possession of shares."

68. Therefore, a transferee pendente lite steps into the shoes of the transferor who is a party to the suit. He acquires all the rights of the transferor. The pendency of the suit would not come in the way of his acquiring such right, if the transferor has any such right. If the transferor has no right, he acquires none. This is a matter which is finally adjudicated in the suit. The judgment and decree passed in the suit is equally binding on him, as his transferee, whether he is impleaded as a party to the suit or not. Transferee from a party of property which is subject matter of partition can exercise all the rights of the transferor. Such transferee is representative in interest of the party from whom he has acquired that interest. Rule 10 of Order 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure clearly recognises the right of a transferee to be impleaded as a party to the proceedings and to be heard before any order is made. It may be that if he does not apply to be impleaded, he may suffer by default on account of any order passed in the proceedings. The position of a person on whom any interest has devolved on account of a transfer during the pendency of any suit or a proceeding is somewhat similar to the position of an heir or a legatee of a party who dies during the pendency of a suit or a proceeding, or an official receiver who takes over the assets of such a party on his insolvency. When a party to a decree dies, leaving some heirs, in the final decree proceedings, shares may be allotted to such heirs. Similarly, in the case of transferee pendente lite, if there is no dispute, final decree Court can proceed to make allotment of the properties in an equitable manner  instead of rejecting their claim for such equitable partition on the ground that they have no locus standi. A transferee from a party of a property which is the subject matter of partition can exercise all the rights of the transferor. There is no dispute that a party can ask for an equitable partition. A transferee from him, therefore, can also seek for an equitable partition, even if the transfer is during the pendency of the suit. Such a construction of section 54 of the Code of Civil Procedure advances the cause of justice.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

R.F.A. No. 960/2003

Decided On: 31.01.2015

 Syed Basheer Malik and Ors.
Vs.
 Jameela Begum and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:N. Kumar and B. Veerappa, JJ.

Citation:AIR 2016(NOC)395 KAR

Print Page

Whether resistance to execution of decree by transferee pendente lite is maintainable?

 A third party to the decree who offers resistance would thus fall within the ambit of Rule 101 if an adjudication is warranted as a consequence of the resistance or obstruction made by him to the execution of the decree. No doubt if the resistance was made by a transferee pendente lite of the judgment debtor, the scope of the adjudication would be shrunk to the limited question whether he is such transferee and on a finding in the affirmative regarding that point the execution court has to hold that he has no right to resist in view of the clear language contained in Rule 102. Exclusion of such a transferee from raising further contentions is based on the salutary principle adumbrated in Section 52 of the Transfer of property Act.1

Supreme Court of India

Silverline Forum Pvt. Ltd vs Rajiv Trust And Another on 31 March, 1998

Bench: K Thomas, S R Babu

Citation;998IIIAD(SC)249, AIR1998SC1754, JT1998(3)SC1, 1998-2-LW55, (1998)119PLR519, RLW1998(2)SC248, 1998(2)SCALE550, (1998)3SCC723, [1998]2SCR587, 1998(1)UJ521

Print Page