In a judgment delivered on November 12, 2025, the Supreme Court set aside orders of the Jharkhand High Court and a trial court that had permitted a counter claim in a civil suit concerning a disputed land sale. The two-judge bench of Justice K. Vinod Chandran and Justice N.V. Anjaria clarified that “a counter claim cannot be directed against a co-defendant” and allowed the appeal filed by Sanjay Tiwari, the original plaintiff.
The case revolved around overlapping claims for the same parcel of land, where multiple oral agreements were alleged by different parties.
Background
The dispute originated in 2002 when Sanjay Tiwari filed a civil suit seeking specific performance that is, enforcement of a sale agreement against one Yugal Kishore Prasad Sao, who had allegedly agreed to sell him 0.93 acres of land. Tiwari claimed he had paid the full price through demand drafts and had even built a boundary wall on the property.
However, the defendant contended that two other individuals (later made defendants 2 and 3) had also entered into an agreement to buy part of the same land. These new defendants then sought to join the case and filed a counter claim, asserting that the entire property should instead be transferred to them.
The trial court allowed this counter claim, and the High Court later affirmed it both citing the need to “avoid multiplicity of litigation.”
Court’s Observations
The Supreme Court, after hearing both sides, disagreed with the lower courts. It emphasized that the civil procedure code does not permit one defendant to file a counter claim against another defendant in the same suit.
The bench observed,
"A counter claim must be directed against the plaintiff and cannot be directed against a co-defendant," citing earlier rulings in Rohit Singh v. State of Bihar (2006) and Rajul Mano Shah v. Kiranbhai Patel (2025).
Justice Chandran noted that even if the second and third defendants had some possession or payment interest, their claim could not override the plaintiff’s suit for specific performance. Importantly, the Court pointed out that their alleged agreement dated back to 2002, while their impleadment application came only in 2006 well beyond the limitation period for filing such a claim.
The Court also found that the defendants’ pleadings were inconsistent: they admitted that a portion of the land (43 decimals) had already been sold to the plaintiff’s father, while their own claim was for 50 decimals. Moreover, there was no evidence that they were ready or willing to pay the remaining amount of consideration.
As the bench noted,
“There is no concrete case for a counter claim, and the plea of fraud regarding land area alteration remains a matter of trial.”
Decision
Allowing the appeal, the Supreme Court set aside the counter claim permitted by the lower courts. It restored the plaintiff’s suit to proceed on its merits, but made it clear that defendants 2 and 3 could not raise any separate suit on the same cause now, as it was already barred by limitation.
The Court concluded firmly,
“We find no reason to leave liberty to the defendants to file a separate suit when the claim was grossly delayed.”
Thus, the apex court’s order ensures that the original plaintiff’s claim for specific performance will now move forward before the trial court without the interference of the invalid counter claim.
The matter will now continue at the trial level, where questions of possession and property transfer will be decided afresh, based solely on the plaintiff’s suit.
Case Title: Sanjay Tiwari v. Yugal Kishore Prasad Sao & Ors.
