A third-party purchaser can challenge a decree for specific performance in Delhi, but the scope for doing so is genuinely narrow, and understanding why requires grasping the doctrine of lis pendens under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. This provision establishes that once a suit for specific performance is pending before a court, any transfer of the property made during that pendency is subject to the outcome of the litigation, meaning a third party who purchases the property while the suit is ongoing generally cannot defeat the rights of the original plaintiff, even if that third party genuinely did not know about the pending case at the time of purchase.

Where a third-party purchaser acquired the property before the specific performance suit was even filed, their position is considerably stronger, and they may be able to challenge or resist the decree by arguing that they are a bona fide purchaser for value without notice, particularly if there was no registered agreement to sell or any public record that could have alerted them to the plaintiff's prior claim at the time they purchased. Similarly, if the third party can demonstrate that the original agreement to sell forming the basis of the specific performance suit was itself fraudulent, collusive between the plaintiff and defendant, or executed to defeat the third party's already-existing rights, this can provide a genuine ground to challenge enforcement of the decree, though the burden of proving such fraud or collusion rests heavily on the party alleging it.

Procedurally, a third-party purchaser who becomes aware of a specific performance decree affecting a property they hold can seek to be impleaded in the suit under Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure if the litigation is still pending, or, if execution proceedings have already begun, can file objections under Section 47 of the CPC raising all available defences regarding their purchase and its timing relative to the litigation. Courts in Delhi examine these objections carefully, weighing the date of purchase, the presence or absence of registered notice of the pending suit, and the overall conduct of all parties involved before deciding whether the third-party purchaser's rights can survive the decree. Because these cases hinge so heavily on precise timelines and documentary evidence, it is important to have your specific facts reviewed promptly by our legal experts at Aapka Legal Advice.

Third-party purchasers facing execution of a specific performance decree often feel they have been caught in a dispute that predates their involvement, but the law does provide genuine, if limited, avenues to protect a truly bona fide purchase. The Top Property Lawyers in Delhi regularly represent third-party purchasers in such execution disputes, and our panel of retired judges offers valuable insight into how Delhi courts have historically balanced the doctrine of lis pendens against genuine bona fide purchase claims.

In summary, while the doctrine of lis pendens under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act makes it genuinely difficult for a third-party purchaser to defeat a decree for specific performance, a well-documented case of purchase before the suit's pendency, or clear evidence of fraud or collusion, can still provide real grounds to successfully challenge enforcement.