Supreme Court Invokes Article 142 to End 35-Year Property Litigation
Introduction: When Justice Is Delayed Beyond Reason
In a significant reaffirmation of its role as the final arbiter of justice, the Supreme Court of India invoked its extraordinary constitutional powers under Article 142 to bring closure to a 35-year-old civil property dispute, ensuring that the successful litigant finally enjoys the fruits of a decree granted in his favour as far back as 1990.
The case highlights systemic delays in civil litigation, abuse of procedural remedies, and the judiciary’s increasing willingness to step in decisively when ordinary legal processes fail.
Background of the Dispute: A Sale Agreement from 1973
The litigation traces its origins to 1973, when Hemchandra Rajaram Bhonsale entered into an agreement to purchase 36 gunthas of land situated in Dhayari village, Pune, from the original owner Rajaram Bajirao Pokale.
Despite receiving consideration, Pokale failed to execute the sale deed, compelling Bhonsale to initiate specific performance proceedings before a Pune civil court.
Civil Suit and Decree: Victory Without Possession
Suit registered: 2 May 1986
Decree passed: 30 November 1990 (in favour of Bhonsale)
Execution petition filed: Within one year
Execution order granted: 25 March 1993
Despite these favourable orders, Bhonsale was never handed physical possession of the property.
Complication During Pendency: Illegal Transfers and Third-Party Claims
During the pendency of the suit, Pokale executed eight separate sale deeds in favour of third parties, transferring portions of the same property.
Key facts:
These transfers occurred after institution of the suit
Purchasers were aware of pending litigation
Some transferees raised permanent constructions
Multiple independent litigations were initiated challenging the original decree
High Court Proceedings: Decree Attains Finality, Yet No Relief
In 1999, the Bombay High Court dismissed all appeals, affirming:
The 1990 decree
The 1993 execution order
However, despite judicial finality, Bhonsale continued to face obstruction on the ground.
In February 2018, even after securing a possession warrant, police authorities faced physical resistance from occupants, leading to:
Fresh stay applications
Further rounds of appeals
Prolonged execution proceedings
Final Round Before Supreme Court
On 19 December 2024, the Bombay High Court again ruled conclusively in favour of Bhonsale, closing all pending issues.
This judgment was challenged before the Supreme Court by the occupants Alka Chavan and Jaymala Date, leading to the present decision.
Supreme Court’s Observations: Justice Without Enjoyment Is No Justice
A Bench comprising Justice Manoj Misra and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan took note of the extraordinary delay and observed:
“It has been more than three decades but the respondent is yet to enjoy the fruits of his litigation success.”
The Court recognised that Bhonsale had:
Succeeded before every judicial forum
Been subjected to relentless harassment
Faced abuse of procedural remedies by judgment debtors and transferees
Invocation of Article 142: Doing Complete Justice
To prevent further abuse, the Supreme Court exercised its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution, directing:
Actual physical possession of the property to be handed over by 15 February
No further applications or petitions concerning the property to be entertained by any court
Binding effect on judgment debtors and transferees pendente lite
The Court explicitly stated that this step was necessary to meet the ends of justice.
Key Statutory Provisions Applied
Article 142, Constitution of India
Empowers the Supreme Court to pass any order necessary to do complete justice in a pending matter.
Section 52, Transfer of Property Act, 1882
Doctrine of Lis Pendens
Provides that:
Any transfer of immovable property during the pendency of a suit does not affect the rights of parties under the decree.
The Court held that:
Transfers made after suit institution were void against the decree-holder
Purchasers took the property subject to litigation risks
Section 19(b), Specific Relief Act, 1963
While normally protecting bona fide purchasers, the Court clarified that:
Section 52 TPA overrides Section 19(b)
Once litigation is pending, purchaser protection cannot defeat a decree
Civil Procedure Code (Bombay Amendment)
The Court noted the provision empowering Executing Courts to:
Award compensation
Penalise obstruction or resistance during execution of decrees
Judicial Precedents Relied Upon
The judgment aligns with settled principles laid down in cases such as:
Jayaram Mudaliar v. Ayyaswami (1972) – doctrine of lis pendens is mandatory
Rajender Singh v. Santa Singh (1973) – transferees pendente lite bound by decree
Chandrakant v. Haribhau (Bombay HC) – resistance during execution invites consequences
Final Directions of the Supreme Court
Occupants directed to hand over vacant possession
Transferees pendente lite ordered to give way
Litigation brought to a complete and irreversible end
Conclusion: A Strong Signal Against Endless Litigation
This judgment is a powerful reminder that:
Winning a case must lead to real relief
Procedural abuse will not be tolerated
The Supreme Court will intervene decisively where justice is frustrated
By invoking Article 142, the Court reaffirmed that judicial finality must mean finality in reality, not merely on paper.

Comments
Post a Comment