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

Popular posts

Father of RG Kar Victim Loses Faith in Legal System Amid Allegations of CBI Inconsistencies

Bill Gates Applauds India's 'Namo Drone Didi' Program: A Game-Changer in Rural Empowerment and Agri-Tech

Encroachment on Public Land: A Growing Threat to Governance and Public Welfare

Flight Operations Disrupted Amid India-Pakistan Tensions: Air India and IndiGo Cancel Multiple Flights on May 13, 2025

Your Complete Online Guide to Land Records and Services in Bihar

Rights of a Arrested Person in India

Equality Before Law

Supreme Court Advocates for Childcare and Feeding Rooms in Public Spaces

Evolution of Constitution under Article 14 to 18

Delhi High Court Grants Bail to Former Bank Manager Accused of Defrauding Woman of ₹13 Crores