In a landmark exercise of its extraordinary constitutional powers, the Supreme Court of India has finally brought closure to a civil litigation saga that spanned more than three decades, ordering possession of a Pune property to be handed over to Hemchandra Rajaram Bhonsale. The case, which began in the early 1970s, highlights not only the persistence of a litigant in the face of prolonged judicial delay but also the Supreme Court’s role in ensuring justice through the expansive powers conferred under Article 142 of the Constitution.

A Litigation Saga Spanning Decades

The legal battle traces its origins to 1973, when Bhonsale entered into an agreement to purchase a parcel of land measuring 36 gunthas in Pune’s Dhayari village from one Rajaram Bajirao Pokale. When Pokale failed to honour his contractual obligations, Bhonsale approached the Pune civil court seeking enforcement of the sale deed. The case was formally registered on May 2, 1986, and after a protracted trial, the civil court issued a decree in Bhonsale’s favour on November 30, 1990.

Despite the favourable decree, Bhonsale faced persistent obstacles in securing possession. Within a year of the judgment, he filed an execution petition, and by March 25, 1993, the court directed the execution of the decree. However, during the pendency of the suit, Pokale sold portions of the property to multiple third parties through eight separate sale deeds. Some of these buyers constructed permanent structures and subsequently launched litigation challenging Bhonsale’s decree, effectively prolonging the dispute.

High Court and Subsequent Litigation

In 1999, the Bombay High Court dismissed all appeals against the 1990 decree, ostensibly bringing finality to the case. Yet, legal troubles persisted. When Bhonsale sought possession under a warrant in February 2018, police officers encountered stiff resistance from the occupants. Multiple stay applications and challenges were filed, dragging the matter into another protracted round of litigation. It was only on December 19, 2024, that the Bombay High Court conclusively ruled in favour of Bhonsale. Even then, the occupants—Alka Chavan and Jaymala Date—challenged the verdict in the Supreme Court, extending the case’s lifespan to over 35 years.

Supreme Court Intervention and Article 142

Recognising the undue hardship endured by Bhonsale and the prolonged denial of his legal rights, a bench comprising Justices Manoj Misra and Ujjal Bhuyan invoked Article 142 of the Constitution to ensure the complete execution of justice. Article 142 empowers the Supreme Court to pass any decree or order necessary to do “complete justice,” including enforcing rights and resolving disputes conclusively.

In its January 12, 2026, judgment, the bench directed that possession of the Dhayari property be handed over to Bhonsale by February 15. The Court emphasised that no further petitions or applications by the appellants or any person claiming rights through them would be entertained by any court, thereby putting an end to decades of legal obstruction.

The Agony of Delayed Justice

The judgment highlighted the personal toll on Bhonsale, who, despite a favourable decree, could not enjoy the fruits of his legal victory for over three decades. “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,” the court noted. The bench acknowledged the repeated rounds of litigation and harassment that Bhonsale endured, often at the hands of the original owner’s transferees.

Legal Principles: Lis Pendens and Section 52

A key aspect of the judgment relied on the principle of lis pendens, codified in Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act. This provision bars any party to a pending suit or proceeding from transferring the property in a manner that would affect the rights of another party under any decree or order that may be passed. The Supreme Court found that Pokale’s transfers to multiple third parties during the pendency of the suit violated this principle, rendering the subsequent buyers’ claims subordinate to Bhonsale’s decree.

The Court also invoked Section 19(b) of the Specific Relief Act, clarifying that the rights under lis pendens take precedence over other provisions when a property is sold during litigation. Additionally, a Bombay-specific amendment to the Civil Procedure Code permits the Executing Court to order reasonable compensation against those who obstruct or resist execution of a decree, further reinforcing the legal basis for Bhonsale’s relief.

Execution and Compliance

The Court ordered the present occupants to surrender actual physical possession of the property to Bhonsale by February 15, emphasising that the decree and conveyance in his favour had attained finality. “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 judgment stated.

Significance of the Judgment

The ruling underscores the Supreme Court’s commitment to ensuring that justice is not merely a formal pronouncement but is effectively realised. It also highlights the critical role of constitutional provisions such as Article 142 in cutting through procedural delays and enforcing rights where protracted litigation and legal obfuscation have denied relief to deserving parties.

The case serves as a cautionary tale about the misuse of property transfers to frustrate pending litigation and the need for vigilant enforcement of legal principles like lis pendens. It also demonstrates the potential of the judicial system to intervene decisively in situations where lower courts and extended litigation have failed to deliver substantive relief.

Broader Implications

Beyond its immediate effect on Bhonsale, the judgment reinforces public confidence in the judiciary’s ability to intervene in long-standing disputes and ensure the rule of law prevails over procedural and technical hurdles. It signals to litigants and property holders alike that delays, while unfortunate, cannot indefinitely nullify legal rights confirmed by decrees.

For legal practitioners, the case reiterates the importance of understanding the interaction between the Transfer of Property Act, the Specific Relief Act, and procedural provisions governing execution, particularly when properties are alienated during pending litigation.

Conclusion

After 35 years of persistent legal battles, Hemchandra Bhonsale is set to finally gain possession of the Pune property he was legally entitled to in 1990. The Supreme Court’s invocation of its special powers under Article 142 not only restores his property rights but also reaffirms the judiciary’s role as the ultimate arbiter of justice. The judgment serves as both a resolution to a decades-long dispute and a potent reminder that the pursuit of justice, however delayed, remains a cornerstone of India’s constitutional framework.