Mumbai, June 2025 — In a significant ruling that strengthens the doctrine of lis pendens, the Bombay High Court has reiterated that any person who purchases a property during the pendency of a civil suit concerning that property is bound by the outcome of that suit, including a decree for specific performance.
The ruling came in the case Alka Shrirang Chavan & Anr. v. Hemchandra Rajaram Bhonsale & Ors., where the Bench of Justice Madhav J. Jamdar dismissed the appeal filed by subsequent purchasers (appellants) who had bought the disputed property after the original buyer had already filed a suit for specific performance of a sale agreement.
What is Lis Pendens?
The doctrine of lis pendens means “pending litigation.” Under Section 52 of the T.P. Act:
- If a property is under litigation, any transfer or sale made during the pendency of that suit does not affect the rights of the other party under the final decree.
- Such a transfer is not void, but is considered subject to the final court decision.
This doctrine ensures that:
- Court proceedings are not defeated by underhanded property transfers,
- Buyers conduct proper due diligence before purchasing any property involved in a legal dispute.
Court’s Observation on the Doctrine of Lis Pendens
Justice Jamdar emphasized the principle of lis pendens, enshrined under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, which prevents the transfer of property from affecting the outcome of a case involving that property.
“Lis pendens arises from the need to prevent the subject matter of a suit from being removed from the control of the Court. Otherwise, parties could make the case ineffective by transferring the property mid-litigation,” the Court noted.
Justice Madhav J. Jamdar, who presided over the case, emphasized the legal doctrine of lis pendens, as codified under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. According to the court, this doctrine is essential to ensure that litigation concerning property is not rendered meaningless by actions of the parties during the course of the trial. The court clarified that when a suit is pending, especially one for specific performance, any transaction concerning the suit property is deemed to be pendente lite and does not affect the rights of the parties as determined by the final decree. This principle safeguards the court’s authority over the disputed property and ensures the litigation process is not frustrated by transferring interests mid-way.
In the facts of the case, the original plaintiff had filed a suit for specific performance of a property agreement. During the pendency of the case, the appellants—who were not part of the original suit—purchased a portion of the property and later resisted the execution of the decree passed in favour of the plaintiff. The plaintiff then filed an application under Order XXI Rule 97 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, seeking removal of the obstructionists and enforcement of peaceful possession of the suit property.
The Executing Court allowed the application and rejected the objection raised by the subsequent purchasers. The appellants then challenged this decision by filing a Regular Civil Appeal. However, both the trial court and the District Judge in Pune dismissed their appeals. The matter eventually reached the High Court.
The appellants argued that a decree for specific performance does not confer ownership unless a sale deed is executed. They maintained that the decree-holder had not yet obtained ownership and therefore could not dispossess them. However, the original plaintiff argued that since the appellants had purchased the property after the suit was filed, their transaction was subject to the rule of lis pendens. As such, they were legally bound by the court’s decision in the specific performance suit.
The High Court rejected the argument of the appellants, holding that the transactions they relied upon were admittedly executed after the filing of the suit. While these transactions were not void per se, they were subject to the rights of the parties to the litigation. Justice Jamdar clarified that although a pending suit does not prohibit dealings with the property, any alienation during the pendency of litigation cannot affect the other party’s rights under a decree unless such transfer is done with the court’s permission.
The doctrine of lis pendens, the court explained, is a principle of public policy. It ensures that the outcome of a court proceeding is not defeated by transferring property involved in a pending suit. The absence of this doctrine would allow a defendant to frustrate a judicial process by alienating the subject matter during litigation. The High Court, therefore, upheld the lower court’s order, reaffirming that subsequent purchasers cannot obstruct a decree for specific performance merely because they hold a later title.
This judgment carries significant implications for property buyers and investors. It underscores the importance of conducting thorough due diligence before purchasing any property, especially verifying whether the property is involved in any ongoing litigation. It also reinforces the enforceability of specific performance decrees and preserves the sanctity of court orders even against third-party purchasers. In the realm of property law, the ruling reestablishes that rights created by a court decree prevail over private transactions made during the course of litigation.
By applying the long-standing doctrine of lis pendens with clarity, the Bombay High Court has sent a strong message that the integrity of the legal process must be preserved, and judicial outcomes cannot be defeated by strategic transfers of property during litigation.
