Allowing the petition the Court held that the transfer of the property was on account of the final culmination of the litigation by the order of the Supreme Court. There was only a delay in the execution of the sale deed due to the pendency of the proceedings as the third and fourth respondent’s mother (since deceased) declined to execute the sale deed under the sale agreement dated June 30, 1994. The subsequent tax liability of the fourth respondent and her husband for the assessment years 2012-13 and 2013-14 could not be to the disadvantage of the petitioner, since the petitioner had been diligently litigating since 2004. Therefore, the benefit of the decree in a contested suit could not be denied merely because the seller or one of the persons had incurred subsequent tax liability. The benefit of a decree would date back to the date of the suit. Therefore, the communication dated July 6, 2018 which required the petitioner to obtain clearance could not be countenanced. The tax liability of the firms of which S and her husband were partners arose subsequent to the commitment in the sale agreement dated June 30, 1994. The Sub-Registrar was directed to release the sale deed dated June 29, 2018 and to cancel all the encumbrances recorded against the property in respect of the tax arrears of the firms of the fourth respondent S and her husband.