The Supreme Court of India has revived two long-pending property appeals, holding that the cases did not legally end (abate) merely because one of the legal heirs died during the proceedings. The ruling clears the way for fresh hearings before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, nearly three decades after the original dispute began.
Background of the Case
The dispute traces back to 1992, when Gopal filed a civil suit seeking declaration and injunction against Kishorilal, later amending it to seek specific performance of an agreement to sell immovable property.
During the pendency of the suit, Kishorilal sold the same property to Brajmohan and Manoj. Despite the sale, the trial court decreed the suit in 2000 in Gopal’s favour, directing enforcement of the original agreement.
Read also:- Registered Ownership Overrides Unproven Family Settlement Claims: Delhi High Court Rules
Aggrieved, Kishorilal and the subsequent purchasers filed a first appeal before the High Court at Gwalior. During the appeal, Kishorilal died in 2005, and all four of his legal heirs were brought on record. One of them, Murarilal, later died in 2007.
A series of procedural applications followed some seeking deletion of parties, others alleging that the appeal had legally ended due to non-substitution of Murarilal’s heirs. In 2017, the High Court ultimately held that the appeal had abated and dismissed it. A connected eviction appeal was also dismissed as a consequence.
What the Supreme Court Examined
The Supreme Court considered a narrow but crucial question: Did the appeal automatically abate because the heirs of one deceased legal heir were not substituted in time?
Read also:- Supreme Court Upholds Cancellation of UP Govt Job for False Criminal Disclosure, Says Honesty Non-Negotiable
The bench analysed whether Kishorilal’s estate was still “sufficiently represented” in the appeal, even after Murarilal’s death.
Court’s Observations
The bench Justice Manoj Misra and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan noted that:
- After Kishorilal’s death, all his legal heirs were initially on record.
- Even after Murarilal died, three other heirs remained parties, along with the purchasers who held the property title.
- At an earlier stage, the High Court itself had recorded that the appeal had not abated and had even allowed impleadment of Murarilal’s heirs later on.
“The estate of the deceased vendor was adequately represented,” the Court observed, adding that non-substitution of one heir does not automatically end the appeal if others are already before the court.
Read also:- Delhi HC Orders Removal of Bhuvan Bam’s Images, Refuses Early Finding on Personality Rights
The judges also pointed out that an earlier High Court order holding the appeal alive could not be reopened later. Doing so, the bench said, violated the principle of res judicata, which prevents re-litigation of the same issue at a later stage of the same case.
Typographical Error Can’t Decide Rights
A key turning point was an order passed in 2011, which mistakenly directed deletion of Kishorilal’s name, even though he had already died and been substituted by his heirs.
Calling this a clerical or typographical mistake, the Supreme Court said such errors can be corrected at any stage and cannot be used to defeat substantive rights.
“The respondent cannot take advantage of an obvious clerical error,” the bench remarked.
The Final Decision
Setting aside the High Court’s 2017 orders, the Supreme Court allowed both appeals. The Court restored the two first appeals to their original numbers and directed the High Court to decide them afresh in accordance with law.
With this, the decades-old property dispute returns to the High Court for a decision on merits ending the question of abatement once and for all.
Case Title:- Kishorilal (Dead) Through LRs & Ors. vs Gopal & Ors.
