Ahemdabad  (ABC Live): The Supreme Court’s ruling in Tahir V. Isani v. Madan Waman Chodankar is a landmark Rule 102 CPC judgment. It clarified how objections in execution must be treated when property transfers occur during litigation. This case is crucial because it balances decree-holders’ rights with fairness for bona fide buyers.

Background of Tahir V. Isani v. Madan Waman Chodankar

The litigation in Tahir V. Isani v. Madan Waman Chodankar traces back to a lease in 1977 and a series of disputes that followed.

• 1977: Property leased to Chodankar, sub-let to Maliks.

• 1988: Original owner sold property to Rizvi Estate & Hotels Pvt. Ltd., independent of disputes.

• 1989–1996: Injunction, eviction, and dissolution suits filed.

• 2007: Appellant Tahir Isani purchased the property from Rizvi Estate.

• 2008: Chodankar obtained an ex parte decree.

• 2009–2019: Isani filed objections under Order XXI Rules 97–101 CPC.

• 2021: The Executing Court allowed the enquiry.

• 2022: High Court wrongly applied Rule 102 CPC and barred objections.

• 2025 (SC): The Supreme Court reversed the High Court, ruling that Isani was not a transferee from the judgment-debtor.

Supreme Court’s Findings in Tahir V. Isani v. Madan Waman Chodankar

The Court gave the following reasons:

• Rule 102 CPC applies only when the buyer got the property from the judgment-debtor. Isani bought from Rizvi Estate, a third party, so the bar did not apply.

• Lis pendens protects decree-holders but not against outside bona fide buyers.

• The High Court erred by applying Rule 102 mechanically.

• Heirs’ objections were mala fide since they were filed after more than 10 years.

Case Law Relied Upon

The Court in Isani v. Chodankar relied on important precedents:

• Dev Raj Dogra v. Gyan Chand Jain (1981) 2 SCC 675 – clarified the limits of lis pendens.

• Usha Sinha v. Dina Ram (2008) 7 SCC 144 – transferees from judgment-debtors cannot block execution.

• Jini Dhanrajgir v. Shibu Mathew (2023) 20 SCC 76 – showed decree-holders’ struggles.

• Bellamy v. Sabine (1857) 1 De G & J 566 – origin of lis pendens in English law.

Analytical Observations

Doctrinal Clarity

The judgment in Tahir V. Isani v. Madan Waman Chodankar narrowed Rule 102 CPC to apply only to buyers from judgment-debtors. Genuine third-party buyers can still raise objections.

Policy Perspective

• Stops collusive decrees that unfairly hurt later buyers.

• Ensures market stability by protecting bona fide purchasers.

Balance of Interests

• Decree-holders: Safe from collusive transfers by judgment-debtors.

• Purchasers: Protected when they buy from independent owners.

• Courts: Must actively hear objections, not dismiss them summarily.

Judicial Trend

The Supreme Court in Isani v. Chodankar shifted away from rigid decree-holder protection. It adopted a more balanced view, ensuring both decree-holders and genuine buyers get justice.

Impact on Litigants

• Decree-holders: Still protected, but cannot silence all objections.

• Bona fide purchasers: Gain legal protection if they bought from outside parties.

• General litigants: Execution proceedings become clearer and fairer.

Timeline of Tahir V. Isani v. Madan Waman Chodankar

Expert Comment

Advocate Dinesh Singh Rawat, Senior Partner, DSR Law Associates, comments:

“The ruling in Tahir V. Isani v. Madan Waman Chodankar ends confusion in execution law. It protects decree-holders from collusion but safeguards innocent buyers. This balance will guide executing courts and reduce misuse of lis pendens.”

Conclusion

In conclusion, Tahir V. Isani v. Madan Waman Chodankar is a landmark Rule 102 CPC judgment. It ensures decree-holders can enforce their decrees while protecting bona fide third-party buyers from unfair loss of rights. By striking this balance, the Court reinforced fairness in the execution law.

Also, read

Explained: Proposed 130th Constitutional Amendment and Its Impact