Transferee Pendente Lite Cannot Resist Execution Of Specific Performance Decree Under Order XXI Rule 102 CPC: Madras High Court

"A purchaser during pendency of litigation has no right to resist or obstruct execution of the decree passed by a competent Court and that no independent right is available to such purchaser." Madras High Court, in a significant ruling dated September 11, 2026, held that a transferee pendente lite is legally barred from resisting or obstructing the execution of a decree for specific performance.

Justice P.B. Balaji, sitting as a single judge, emphasized that such purchasers derive their title subject to the litigation and cannot invoke the provisions of Order XXI Rule 58 or Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) to challenge the executability of a decree that has attained finality.

The dispute arose from a suit for specific performance filed in 2012 regarding an agreement of sale dated September 8, 2005. Following an ex parte decree in 2017, the defendants sought to set aside the decree after a delay of 567 days, citing health issues, which the trial court rejected. Simultaneously, a third-party purchaser, who had acquired the property during the pendency of the suit, filed an application under Order XXI Rule 58 and Section 47 CPC, seeking to dismiss the execution proceedings on the grounds that the sale agreement was void and that they were bona fide purchasers.

Court Rejects Delay Condonation

The court first addressed the petition filed by the defendants to condone the 567-day delay in seeking to set aside the ex parte decree. The bench noted that the defendants had entered an appearance and filed a written statement, only to become negligent during the trial stage. Finding the explanation for the delay to be casual and lacking merit, especially given the two-year silence after the alleged recovery from illness, the court refused to exercise its discretion to condone the delay, thereby upholding the finality of the specific performance decree.

Transfer Pendente Lite and Order XXI Rule 102

The court then turned its attention to the challenge posed by the purchaser in the execution proceedings. Referencing Order XXI Rule 102 CPC, the court observed that this provision explicitly excludes the right of a person to whom the judgment debtor has transferred the property after the institution of the suit to offer resistance or obstruction. The bench clarified that the Executing Court had erred in allowing the purchaser's application, as a transferee pendente lite does not possess an independent right to challenge the decree.

Executing Court Cannot Go Behind Decree

The court further addressed the principle that an Executing Court cannot go behind the decree or examine the validity of the judgment unless the court that passed the decree lacked inherent jurisdiction. The bench noted that the Executing Court had incorrectly relied on a previous Second Appeal judgment that did not even concern the suit sale agreement. By attempting to re-adjudicate issues that should have been settled during the trial, the Executing Court had exceeded its jurisdiction under Section 47 CPC.

Binding Nature of Lis Pendens

The court reaffirmed the doctrine of lis pendens under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, holding that any alienation made during the pendency of a suit is subject to the final outcome of the litigation. The bench observed that the title of a transferee pendente lite cannot supersede a court-ordered decree for specific performance. Consequently, such purchasers are bound by the decree in the suit, and their claims of bona fide purchase or investment do not constitute a legal shield against the execution of the decree.

Execution to Proceed Unhindered

In its final directions, the High Court allowed the revisions filed by the decree holder, setting aside the orders of the Executing Court that had allowed the purchaser's objections. The Execution Petition was restored to the file of the trial court with a firm directive to proceed with the execution of the specific performance decree in accordance with the law, within a period of three months from the receipt of the order, ensuring that the fruits of the litigation are finally delivered to the decree holder.

Date of Decision: 11 September 2026