Latest JudgementTransfer of Property Act, 1882

Alka Shrirang Chavan & Anr. v. Hemchandra Rajaram Bhonsale & Ors., 2026

The Court clearly demarcated the field of operation of Section 19(b) SRA and Section 52 TPA.

Supreme Court of India·15 January 2026

Transfer of Property Act, 1882

Court

Supreme Court of India

Date of Decision

15 January 2026

Judges

Justice Manoj Misra & Justice Ujjal Bhuyan

Citation

Acts / Provisions

Section 13(1)(ia), Hindu Marriage Act, 1955

Section 25, Hindu Marriage Act, 1955

Facts of the Case

The respondent entered into an agreement for sale in 1973.
Upon failure of performance by the vendor, a suit for specific performance was instituted in 1986 before a Pune court.
A notice of lis pendens was registered soon thereafter.
During the pendency of the suit, the judgment debtor transferred portions of the suit property to third parties between 1987 and 1989.
One of the transferees constructed a bungalow on part of the property.
The Trial Court decreed specific performance in 1990, directing execution of sale deed and delivery of possession.
As the vendor failed to comply, a Court Commissioner executed the sale deed in favour of the decree holder in 1993.
The decree attained finality after dismissal of multiple challenges.
During execution, the subsequent purchasers obstructed delivery of possession, claiming independent title.
Their objections were rejected by the Executing Court and the High Court, leading to the present appeal before the Supreme Court.

Whether a subsequent purchaser can claim protection under Section 19(b) of the Specific Relief Act when the transfer is made during the pendency of a suit for specific performance?
Whether Section 19(b) of the Specific Relief Act gives way to Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act once a suit is instituted?
Whether the doctrine of lis pendens renders transfers pendente lite subservient to the decree passed in the suit?
Whether a transferee pendente lite has the right to obstruct execution of a decree for specific performance?
Whether knowledge of pendency of the suit defeats the claim of being a bona fide purchaser?

Section 19(b) of the Specific Relief Act operates only prior to the institution of a suit.
Once a suit is filed, the doctrine of lis pendens under Section 52 TPA comes into force.
A transferee pendente lite cannot claim to be a bona fide purchaser.
Such transferees have no right to resist or obstruct execution of the decree.

The Court clearly demarcated the field of operation of Section 19(b) SRA and Section 52 TPA.
It reaffirmed that lis pendens applies from the moment a suit is instituted, irrespective of notice.
The judgment clarifies that bona fide purchaser protection becomes irrelevant once litigation commences.
The ruling prevents frustration of decrees by alienation of property during pendency of suits.
The Court harmonized specific performance law with property law principles.
The decision strengthens finality of decrees and discourages collusive transfers.