SC invokes its special powers to decide 35-year-old civil suit

The Supreme Court recently invoked its extraordinary constitutional powers to grant relief to a litigant who was denied possession of his property for over 35 years despite obtaining a decree in his favour from a Pune district court in 1990.

Giving finality to the suit proceedings that remained mired in litigation for over three decades, the court ordered possession of the land measuring 36 gunthas in Pune’s Dhayari village to be handed over to one Hemchandra Rajaram Bhonsale by February 15.

Lamenting how justice has eluded the petitioner since 1990, a bench of justices Manoj Misra and Ujjal Bhuyan on January 12 said: “We direct that no further application(s) or petition(s) either by the appellants or by the judgment debtor i.e. respondent No. 2 or by any other person claiming right qua the suit property through them shall be entertained by any court.”

Such a direction was passed by the court resorting to its vast powers to do complete justice under Article 142 of the Constitution, which allows the Supreme Court to enforce it’s orders or decrees for doing complete justice.

We consider such a direction to be necessary to ensure that respondent No. 1 (Bhonsale) is not subjected to any further harassment which will meet the ends of justice,” said the judgment.

The story of the litigation gave a telling account of the long wait for justice a litigant must endure despite winning across different courts. Bhonsale entered into an agreement to purchase the property in question in 1973 from one Rajaram Bajirao Pokale. As the latter did not fulfil his part of the contract, Bhonsale was forced to approach the civil court in Pune for giving effect to the sale deed. On May 2, 1986, the suit was registered and the civil judge passed a decree in favour of Bhonsale on November 30, 1990.

Within a year, he filed an execution petition and by an order of March 25, 1993, the decree was directed to be executed in favour of Bhonsale. However, during the pendency of the suit, Pokale, the original owner, sold portions of the property to different people under eight sale deeds that were subsequently registered. These new owners of the properties, some of whom even raised permanent structures, filed separate litigations challenging the decree in favour of Bhonsale. The case witnessed several rounds of litigation and, in 1999, the Bombay high court dismissed all appeals and gave finality to the decree of 1990 and the execution order of 1993.

But the legal woes of Bhonsale did not end there. In February 2018, he obtained a possession warrant in respect of the suit property but when the police went to take possession, they faced stiff resistance from the owners. The occupants kept filing multiple stay applications and challenged it before the higher courts. This led to yet another round of litigation which culminated on December 19, 2024, when the Bombay high court closed all legal issues in favour of Bhonsale. This verdict was challenged by the occupants - Alka Chavan and Jaymala Date -- in the top court.

The top court, while bringing a closure to the case, could not resist from noting the agony and pain of the litigant who had earned justice from courts but failed to enjoy its fruits. “It has been more than three decades but respondent No. 1 (Bhonsale) is yet to enjoy the fruits of his litigation success as actual physical possession of the suit property has still not been handed over to him. In the process, he has suffered multiple rounds of litigation either at the hands of the judgment debtor or at the instance of the appellants.”

On the legal aspects of the case, the court held that under Transfer of Property Act, Section 52 clearly lays down that “in a suit or proceeding in which any right to immovable property is directly and specifically in question, the property cannot be transferred or otherwise dealt with by any party to the suit or proceeding so as to affect the rights of any other party thereto under any decree or order which may be made therein”.

It added that rule is sacrosanct and it stood violated by the original owner’s misdeeds of transferring the property to several purchasers once the suit was registered and the purchasers became aware of the pending proceedings.

“The moment a suit or proceeding is instituted by a party to the contract whereafter there is transfer of the suit property, Section 19(b) of the Specific Relief Act would have to give way to Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act in which event the doctrine of lis pendens would come into force,” the court held.

Besides, the court noted a Bombay amendment to the Civil Procedure Code which allows the Executing Court to order reasonable compensation against persons who put up such resistance or obstruction to the execution of a decree.

“All the courts have recorded a clear finding of fact that the appellants were fully aware of the pendency of the suit. Now that the decree and conveyance in favour of respondent No. 1 (Bhonsale) have attained finality, the transferee pendente lite i.e. the appellants have to give way and hand over actual physical possession of the suit property to respondent No. 1.”

The present occupants were directed to hand over actual physical possession of the property in question to Bhonsale by February 15 next month.