The builder does not have clear and marketable title to the property as suit is pending in respect of the said property 

seek copy of civil suit filed against builder 

It is not advisable to purchase the property which is under litigation.

The sales team in order to promote sales may indulge in spreading such false information or rumours.

You may obtain a proper legal opinion from an experienced lawyer in the local on the basis of the production of copy of property related documents and proceed only if recommended.

pending civil suit for declaration and injunction is a risk. Do not rely on the sales team. Check the case number, court, and latest order to see if any injunction is passed. If the suit challenges title or ownership, avoid the project.

Don’t purchase flat 

if litigation is pending in respect of property title is not clear and marketable 

bank must not have done proper due diligence 

The banks will provide loan on the basis of property documents.

The bank panel lawyers may not be aware of the pending litigation because it doesn't appears in the encumbrance and generally the developers manage banks on such issues by suppressing the litigation facts.

Now if you have decided to face the litigation consequences in the disputed property despite aware of the facts then you may proceed as per your own opinion.

No, don't buy—lis pendens risks invalidating title. Bank loans offer no full protection. Get Pune lawyer to check suit via MahaRERA.

- Since, there is a civil case is pending , then you should not purchase that property even the builder is offering the said flat on cheap rate . 

- Declaration may be for claiming ownership of the said flat , and injunction is for getting the stay upon that flat . 

You can buy but take a indemnify bond from seller for the same 

You must not believe in what the sales team tell you 

Even if banks have financed this project it is of no relevance since the ultimate person who will get trapped will be the flat buyer 

Ask the builder to give you copy of the suit papers so that they can be studied by a competent advocate 

It also needs to be checked whether the court has granted any stay in that suit 

Buying a flat in a project where civil litigation is disclosed in RERA requires careful and structured due diligence. The mere existence of a case does not automatically mean that you must walk away, but you should never rely only on the builder’s verbal assurances or on bank approvals.

From what you have stated, the first and most important step is to understand the exact nature of the civil case. A suit described as one for “declaration, injunction and other reliefs” can range from a relatively minor dispute to a serious challenge to ownership. The seriousness depends on who has filed the suit, whether the plaintiff is an original landowner, heir, co-owner, neighbour or a third party, what exactly is being challenged (ownership/title versus access or development rights), whether any interim injunction is operating, and at what stage the case currently stands. You should insist on seeing the plaint, the written statement, any interim or ad-interim orders, and the latest order sheet from the court. If the suit seeks declaration of ownership or cancellation of title documents, that is high risk. If it is only an injunction suit and there is no stay operating, the risk may be manageable, but it still requires safeguards.

RERA disclosure by itself is not a clean chit. RERA registration only means that the builder has disclosed the existence of litigation; it does not certify or guarantee clear title. RERA authorities do not adjudicate ownership disputes, and many projects continue to remain RERA-registered despite serious land disputes.

Coming to your follow-up question about bank loans, approval of home loans by major banks is not conclusive proof that the litigation is minor or harmless. Banks conduct due diligence primarily to assess loan recoverability, not to guarantee your long-term title safety. In many cases, banks rely on legal opinions provided by the builder’s panel lawyers and proceed as long as there is no active stay order restraining construction or sale. If the litigation later goes against the builder, the loss typically falls on the buyer, not the bank. Therefore, bank funding may reduce risk but does not eliminate it.

You must also specifically verify whether any injunction or adverse order exists. Clarify whether there is any temporary or permanent injunction against construction, sale, or creation of third-party rights, whether the plaintiff has sought a stay on alienation, and whether any authority has been restrained from granting permissions. If there is any such restraint in force, it is unsafe to proceed.

Another important aspect is examining the continuity of title and the plaintiff’s relationship to the land. Even if the builder holds a registered title deed, you need to understand whether the plaintiff is claiming as a co-owner or heir, whether there was any prior agreement, development right or family dispute, and whether the land was ever subject to acquisition, tenancy or trust-related claims. Many reputed builders face litigation because title issues were not fully resolved at the land stage.

If, after independent verification, you still wish to proceed, you should protect yourself contractually. At a minimum, insist on strong indemnity clauses covering adverse litigation outcomes, a clear refund-with-interest clause if the title is affected by court orders, avoid paying substantial amounts upfront, and preferably invest only after major approvals such as OC or CC (where applicable) are in place.

From a practical perspective, if the litigation challenges ownership or title, involves landowners or heirs, or has pending injunction applications, waiting or walking away is the safer option, regardless of bank funding or the builder’s reputation. If the litigation is genuinely minor, transparently disclosed, carries no injunction, and is independently verified by your own lawyer through court records, then you may consider proceeding with appropriate safeguards.

In short, bank loans do not equal clear title, RERA registration does not mean litigation-free, and builder assurances do not provide legal certainty. Only independent verification of court records and title documents can give you real clarity and safety before investing.

Lis Pendens Risk: Court case creates a legal claim on the property. Even though you're buying later, if the plaintiff wins, you could lose money or ownership.​

Bank Loans Don't Protect You: Banks are secured creditors—they get paid first. Your equity (the money you invest) bears all the risk.​

Ancestral Claim Is Strong: The plaintiff was a minor when the original deal happened. Courts favor family inheritance claims.​

Result: Property is unsellable for 3-7+ years if litigation continues. Not worth the risk.

Action: Before any decision, hire a Pune property lawyer to confirm your specific unit's survey number isn't among the disputed ones (S.No. 51/1, 51/4, 51/7, 52/8, 52/12). If it is affected—don't buy.

Based on the suit details you have provided, this litigation is not minor in nature. It is a title-based family property dispute, which is the highest-risk category for a homebuyer. The suit involves claims for partition, cancellation of sale deeds, declaration that the development agreement and subsequent conveyances are not binding, and injunction. These reliefs go to the root of ownership and development rights and cannot be treated as routine or technical litigation.

The plaintiff is asserting ownership of a 1/28th undivided share. Even though this may appear numerically small, in law even a fractional undivided share is sufficient to challenge alienations, seek injunctions, or demand compensation. Courts do not assess seriousness by percentage alone. The challenge to the development agreement of 2007 and sale deed of 2009 directly questions the foundation of the builder’s title. If the plaintiff succeeds even partially, the court may declare the documents not binding on his share, direct partition, or award monetary compensation or alternate land.

The fact that the plaintiff was a minor at the time of execution of the development agreement is particularly important. Courts treat alienation of alleged ancestral property affecting minors with heightened scrutiny, especially where no court-appointed guardian represented the minor’s interest. This argument is not frivolous and cannot be brushed aside merely because the project has progressed. The suit is still pending, written statements have been filed, and third-party impleadment is under consideration. This means the dispute is live and unresolved.

While demolition of an already developed township is unlikely as courts generally avoid disturbing third-party rights, the financial and practical consequences are very real. These can include compensation liability, delays in conveyance, cloud on title, and long-term impact on resale value. For a homebuyer, this translates into uncertainty, stress, and reduced exit options, even if physical possession is ultimately not disturbed.

Certain factors commonly relied upon by buyers do not eliminate this risk. RERA registration only ensures disclosure of litigation; it does not certify clean title. Approval of home loans by large banks does not amount to title insurance for buyers. Banks primarily protect their loan recovery and often rely on panel legal opinions and the absence of an interim stay. If litigation later goes against the builder, the consequences generally fall on buyers, not on the bank. Verbal assurances from sales teams or references to builder reputation have no legal value.

To verify whether the flat or tower you intend to purchase is impacted, you must go beyond general statements. You should obtain the sanctioned master layout and demarcation maps showing survey-number-wise breakup of the entire township, with clear superimposition of Survey Nos. 51/1, 51/4, 51/7, 52/8 and 52/12 against specific towers, amenities, roads, and open spaces. This should be demanded in writing. Hesitation or vague explanations from the builder at this stage is itself a red flag.

These documents must then be independently cross-verified through revenue records such as 7/12 extracts, property cards, village maps, and consolidation or falani records, since falani allotment is specifically cited in the dispute. This exercise should be done through your own advocate or title investigator and not based solely on builder-marked plans. You must also assess whether the plaintiff’s claimed share overlaps not only with residential towers but also with common amenities and internal infrastructure, as compensation claims often attach to the overall project value.

It is equally important to check the current court record to confirm that there is no interim injunction restraining sale, construction, or creation of third-party rights, and whether any application for injunction is pending. Even a pending injunction application increases risk and uncertainty.

From a practical, risk-based perspective, given that this is a live title dispute involving ancestral claims, minor’s rights, and cancellation of development documents, and is not at a concluding stage, the safest course if you want complete peace of mind is to avoid investing at this stage, irrespective of bank funding or builder assurances. If you still choose to proceed, it should only be after independent verification of survey-number impact, preferably post-OC, with strong, suit-specific indemnities and minimal upfront exposure, while accepting that resale liquidity and long-term certainty may be affected.

In clear terms, this litigation is serious from a buyer’s standpoint. It is not routine or negligible. Even if the builder ultimately succeeds, buyers bear interim uncertainty and risk. If your objective is a clean title and long-term security, waiting or walking away is the safer option.

whether court has granted any interim reliefs ?

at most plaintiff has minor  share in proeprty 

if bulder executes indemnity bond to indemnify you in event of third party claims go ahead and buy flat 

Your subsequent post clearly states that there is a pending litigation against the property and as the plaintiff referred is within the entire property, his share of property has not been identified  yet because the case has not been disposed. Therefore your hurry to buy the litigated property seems to be a wrong and hasty decision, which may keep you entangled in the ongoing litigation and perhaps it may result into a time, money and energy loss if the court verdict may be against your interests.

It is not understood that why are you so much interested in buying a property which is clearly let known that it is under litigation?

There is no point in rendering any opinion to you if you are adamant to buy the property even after  the risk has been explained.

You are creating all the possibilities in your favor without understanding the risk involved in it neither you have even tried to obtain a proper legal opinion from an experienced lawyer in the local by producing the proeprty related papers before the local lawyer.

If you are so much interested to buy the property despite clear objections made, then it is your decision.

Yes your observation above is correct 

1. Do not ask the sale team about the seriousness of the suit since they will surely call it nothing.

2. Collect the plaint/petition filed by the suitor and ask a lawyer to opine about its seriousness.

3. You can directly contact the Suitor top understand the possibility of his wining the case  for deciding on the matter.

1. No. Bank's extending loan is not the signal that the property is free from any future encumbrance.

2. Get the property title searched thoroughly before spending a dime on it.

1. Survey Number can be verified by cross checking the same  from the BLRO office.

2. It is difficult to predict the outcome of the case so easily.

3. Consult with a local lawyer in this regard and take controlled step for booking the flat. 

1. There is a monetary claim only.

2. If you are eager to invest on he flat, book it only after appreciable numbers of persons have booked flat in that scheme.

- Since, the case of this property is pending before the Court , then you should not purchase the same. 

- Further, if there is partition suit has been filed then any sale during the period of proceeding of the case can be challenged.