The Supreme Court of India has delivered a significant ruling, reiterating that a transferee pendente lite—a person who acquires property during the pendency of a suit—has no right to obstruct the execution of a decree. The judgment, passed by a Bench of Justices Manoj Misra and Ujjal Bhuyan, emphasizes that such transfers are bound by the outcome of the litigation, holding them strictly subservient to the decree passed by the court. This decision reinforces the long-standing doctrine of lis pendens, enshrined in Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, which dictates that during the pendency of any suit concerning immovable property, the property cannot be transferred or dealt with by any party to the suit so as to affect the rights of any other party under any decree or order which may be made therein. The Court analyzed Order XXI Rule 102 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, alongside Section 52 TPA, to conclude that allowing a pendente lite transferee to resist execution would defeat the object of the law and undermine the sanctity of the judicial process. The specific case, *Alka Shrirang Chavan & Anr. v. Hemchandra Rajaram Bhonsale & Ors.* (2026 LiveLaw (SC) 44), saw the Supreme Court dismissing appeals by subsequent purchasers, affirming the Bombay High Court's decision to remove their obstruction in the execution of a specific performance decree. The ruling clarifies that the scope of adjudication in resistance proceedings under Order XXI Rules 97-101 CPC narrows down to determining if the objector is a transferee pendente lite; if so, their resistance fails. While this ruling firmly establishes the lack of obstruction rights for transferees from a judgment-debtor during litigation, it is crucial to note a separate clarification by the Supreme Court in *Tahir V. Isani v. Madan Waman Chodankar* (dated August 28, 2025). This related judgment stated that the bar under Order XXI Rule 102 CPC applies only to transferees from the judgment-debtor, not to those who acquire title from a third party unconnected with the original litigation. This recent series of judgments underscores the judiciary's commitment to ensuring that decree-holders can realize the fruits of their litigation without undue obstruction caused by subsequent transfers.