Pendente lite tenancy and lack of title cannot defeat decree-holder's possession rights in specific performance execution.

A person who lacks title cannot create tenancy rights binding on the true owner or decree-holder, and tenancies created during pendency of a suit are ineffective against rights declared in the decree under the principle against transfers pendente lite. The objectors' pleas of waiver, estoppel, and statutory tenancy were rejected because the material relied on did not amount to recognition of tenancy or abandonment of possession rights, and their possession was traced only to the judgment-debtor. A sale deed executed by the Registrar under the specific performance decree was upheld, and physical possession could be enforced in execution where the decree and governing law permitted it.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether tenancies created by a person found to have no title in the property were binding on the decree-holder; (ii) whether the tenancies created during pendency of the suit were hit by the principle embodied in Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act and were void as against the decree-holder; (iii) whether the decree-holder was estopped or had waived his rights, and whether the objectors could claim statutory tenancy or only symbolic possession; (iv) whether the sale deed executed by the Registrar was a nullity and whether the decree-holder was entitled to physical possession in execution of the specific performance decree.

Issue (i): whether tenancies created by a person found to have no title in the property were binding on the decree-holder.

Analysis: The person who inducted the objectors was previously held to have no right, title, or interest in the property. A person without title cannot create enforceable tenancy rights against the true owner or decree-holder. The fact that he was described as a landlord in relation to the objectors did not enlarge his rights against the decree-holder.

Conclusion: The tenancies were not binding on the decree-holder and the issue was decided against the objectors.

Issue (ii): whether the tenancies created during pendency of the suit were hit by the principle embodied in Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act and were void as against the decree-holder.

Analysis: The tenancies were created long after the Transfer of Property Act had become applicable and during the pendency of a suit directly involving rights in immovable property. The principle against transfers pendente lite applied to prevent the parties from defeating the pending litigation. Even apart from the strict statutory application, the same principle was treated as part of justice, equity and good conscience and therefore governed the case.

Conclusion: The tenancies were void and ineffective against the decree-holder and the issue was decided in his favour.

Issue (iii): whether the decree-holder was estopped or had waived his rights, and whether the objectors could claim statutory tenancy or only symbolic possession.

Analysis: The letter relied upon by the objectors and the application moved in the Supreme Court did not amount to recognition of tenancy, waiver of rights, or intentional abandonment of the right to possession. The authorities on statutory tenancy and special rent control statutes were inapplicable. The objectors derived possession only through the judgment-debtor and could not claim a better independent right than that source.

Conclusion: There was no waiver, no estoppel, and no statutory tenancy in favour of the objectors; they were liable to be dispossessed in execution and the issue was decided against them.

Issue (iv): whether the sale deed executed by the Registrar was a nullity and whether the decree-holder was entitled to physical possession in execution of the specific performance decree.

Analysis: The decree itself authorised the Registrar to execute the sale deed after the judgment-debtors failed to act within the time allowed. The omission to invite objections to the draft deed was only a technical defect and caused no prejudice. A decree for specific performance carries with it the right to obtain possession where the decree-holder has complied with the decretal terms, and the absence of an express prayer for possession did not defeat enforcement in the facts of the case.

Conclusion: The sale deed was not a nullity and the decree-holder was entitled to physical possession of the property.

Final Conclusion: All objections were rejected, the execution was upheld, and the decree-holder was held entitled to obtain physical possession of the premises by dispossessing the objectors.

Ratio Decidendi: A transferee or occupant claiming through a person who had no title cannot resist execution against the true owner or decree-holder, and a transfer or tenancy created pendente lite is ineffective against the rights declared by the decree; in a decree for specific performance, possession may be enforced in execution where the decree and the governing law so permit.

---