In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court clarified that a subsequent purchaser in a property dispute may not be a 'necessary party' in a suit for specific performance but can still be considered a 'proper party' if their rights could be impacted by the outcome.
The bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan passed the judgment in the matter of M/S J N Real Estate vs. Shailendra Pradhan & Ors., where the appellant (a later purchaser of the disputed land) sought to be added as a party to a suit for specific performance.
The appellant argued that he had lawfully purchased the property through a registered sale deed and had a substantial interest that could be affected by the suit’s decision. Although the original plaintiff did not oppose this request, the High Court had earlier set aside the trial court’s order permitting the appellant's inclusion.
"We may only say that the presence of the appellant in the suit is required for proper and effective adjudication of the dispute in the suit," the bench noted, highlighting that the plaintiff had no objection to the impleadment.
The case involved competing claims over the same land based on different Wills and agreements. One side claimed ownership through a Will dated 03.02.2001, while the other based their claim on a Will dated 07.07.2001 and a subsequent agreement to sell.
The trial court had initially allowed the appellant’s impleadment, stating that the decision in the suit could directly affect his rights. However, the High Court reversed this decision using its supervisory powers under Article 227 of the Constitution, raising doubts about the authenticity of the appellant's transaction.
The Supreme Court reversed the High Court’s order and restored the trial court’s decision. It emphasized the distinction between a necessary party—without whom no effective decree can be passed—and a proper party, whose presence helps in comprehensive adjudication.
"A necessary party is one in whose absence no effective decree can be passed. A proper party is one whose presence helps the court to effectively resolve the dispute," the Court explained.
Citing past judgments including Sumtibai v. Paras Finance Co. and Mumbai International Airport v. Regency Convention Centre, the Court reaffirmed that if a third party shows a fair interest or title, the court may exercise discretion to implead them—even if they are not initially part of the contract.
Ultimately, the Court ruled in favor of the appellant, stating that the issues around the sale deed’s genuineness must be addressed during trial and not used to block impleadment at the preliminary stage.
"We keep all contentions open for all the parties concerned to be canvassed before the Trial Court," the judgment concluded.
Case Title: M/S J N REAL ESTATE VERSUS SHAILENDRA PRADHAN & ORS.
Appearance:
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. C.U. Singh, Sr. Adv. Mr. Gaurav Agarwal, Sr.Adv. Mr. S.Sukumar, Adv. Mr. Sreegesh M.K., Adv. Mr. Anand Sukumar, AOR Mr. Bhupesh Kumar Pathak, Adv. Mrs. Ruche Anand, Adv.
For Respondent(s) :Mr. Navin Pahwa, Sr. Adv. Mr. Vivek Singh, AOR Mr. Ritik Dwivedi, Adv. Ms. Tanvi Anand, Adv. Ms. Rida Shafique, Adv. Ms. Prerna Priyadarshini, AOR Mr. Syed Faraz Alam, Adv. Mr. Atharva Gaur, Adv. Mr. Aayushman Aggarwal, Adv.