After more than three decades of relentless litigation, the Supreme Court of India has intervened to deliver justice in a long-standing civil property dispute in Pune. Invoking its extraordinary powers under Article 142 of the Constitution, the apex court directed that possession of a 36-guntha property in Dhayari village be handed over to Hemchandra Rajaram Bhonsale by February 15, bringing closure to a legal struggle that began in the early 1970s. The decision underscores the court’s commitment to ensuring that litigants receive the fruits of their legal victories without further harassment.

The case highlights the enduring challenges faced by property owners in India, where delays in the judicial system and strategic litigation tactics can stretch legal battles across decades. In his order on January 12, a bench of Justices Manoj Misra and Ujjal Bhuyan lamented the long wait for justice, noting that Bhonsale had been denied possession of his property despite obtaining a favourable district court decree in 1990. The court emphasized that no further petitions or applications by the appellants, the judgment debtor, or any person claiming rights through them would be entertained, effectively putting an end to decades of litigation.

The saga of the property dispute dates back to 1973, when Bhonsale entered into an agreement to purchase the land from Rajaram Bajirao Pokale. Pokale, however, failed to honour his contractual obligations, prompting Bhonsale to approach the Pune civil court to enforce the sale. The case was registered on May 2, 1986, and after several years of proceedings, the civil judge passed a decree in Bhonsale’s favour on November 30, 1990.

Following the decree, Bhonsale filed an execution petition, and by March 25, 1993, the court directed that the property be handed over to him. However, Pokale had sold portions of the property to multiple parties—eight different buyers—through registered sale deeds during the pendency of the litigation. Many of these new owners constructed permanent structures on the land and subsequently challenged Bhonsale’s claim, leading to a series of further litigations.

Despite the hurdles, in 1999, the Bombay High Court dismissed all appeals by these parties, reaffirming the decree and execution order in Bhonsale’s favour. Yet, even after these judicial victories, Bhonsale could not take possession. In February 2018, he obtained a possession warrant, but enforcement proved difficult due to continued resistance from the occupants, who filed multiple stay applications and challenged the order in higher courts. This prolonged the legal battle further, culminating in a December 19, 2024 judgment by the Bombay High Court, which finally closed all pending issues in Bhonsale’s favour. Nonetheless, the occupants of the property—Alka Chavan and Jaymala Date—approached the Supreme Court, prompting the final intervention.

The Supreme Court, while ordering possession to be handed over, underscored the personal and financial toll on Bhonsale. The bench observed that despite winning multiple rounds in courts, Bhonsale had been deprived of the benefit of his legal victories for over 35 years, suffering repeated delays and harassment at the hands of both the original owner and subsequent occupants. “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,” the court noted.

On legal grounds, the court relied on Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, which prohibits parties to a suit from transferring the property in question in a manner that prejudices the rights of other parties under a decree. The court observed that the original owner’s transfer of portions of the property to multiple buyers during the pendency of the suit violated this provision and that the doctrine of lis pendens was applicable. Additionally, the bench referred to provisions under the Specific Relief Act and a Bombay amendment to the Civil Procedure Code, which allow executing courts to order compensation for those obstructing decree execution.

The court made it clear that the present occupants of the property were fully aware of the pending litigation when they acquired their portions of the land. “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.

The Supreme Court’s order now mandates that the property be returned to Bhonsale by February 15, effectively ending a legal battle that spanned over 35 years and involved multiple rounds of litigation in various courts. The judgment is being hailed as a significant example of the court using its constitutional powers under Article 142 to enforce complete justice and provide relief to a litigant who has endured decades of uncertainty.

The case serves as a stark reminder of the challenges faced by property owners in India, particularly those who pursue legal remedies to enforce contracts or claims. Strategic transfers of property and protracted litigation can often leave victorious litigants unable to enjoy the fruits of their legal victories. Experts note that while the judicial process ensures thorough scrutiny, there is also a need for mechanisms to expedite execution of decrees to prevent such prolonged hardships.

For Bhonsale, the Supreme Court’s order represents not just legal vindication but also the culmination of a personal struggle that has lasted more than a generation. With possession now formally directed to be handed over, the decades-long dispute finally reaches closure, setting a precedent for the enforcement of property rights and the application of the doctrine of lis pendens in Indian property law.

The ruling is expected to resonate widely in legal circles, highlighting the Supreme Court’s willingness to exercise its extraordinary powers to deliver justice where conventional litigation mechanisms have failed to provide timely relief. It also reinforces the principle that parties to a suit cannot circumvent court decrees through strategic transfers, ensuring that final judgments are respected and executed without undue delay.