Click the Play button to listen to article

The Supreme Court has held that a person who purchases suit property during the pendency of a civil suit, from a party already impleaded as a defendant, is a necessary party to the suit seeking declaration of tenancy status against the property.

A bench of Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice Atul S Chandurkar ruled so while setting aside the order of the Gujarat High Court which had refused to implead the appellants as defendants in a suit filed by a person claiming tenancy rights over a portion of the suit property.

The plaintiff (respondent) had filed a civil suit seeking declaration that his occupation of the premises was as a tenant, and also sought a permanent injunction. The co-owner of the suit property was impleaded as the first defendant.

During the pendency of the suit, the appellants purchased the suit property from the former owners, including the first defendant. The husband of the first appellant sought impleadment as a defendant, but the application could not be decided before his death, following which it was rejected for want of prosecution.

The appellants later filed a fresh application seeking impleadment, asserting their interest in the suit property under the registered sale deed. The trial court rejected the application, which was also upheld by the High Court, holding that the appellants were neither necessary nor proper parties.

Before the Supreme Court, Senior Advocate Nachiketa Joshi argued for the appellants, contending that since one of the vendors had already been impleaded as a defendant, the appellants were necessary parties to a suit in which the plaintiff sought a declaration of his tenancy status, as they have acquired title. It was also contended that the earlier application did not bar the subsequent application as its rejection was not on merits but technical grounds.

Per contra, the respondents (plaintiff) relied on Bibi Zubaida Khatoon v Nabi Hasan Saheb, M/s Garment Craft v Prakash Chand Goel, Kasturi v Uyyamperumal, and Mumbai International Airport Pvt. Ltd, to contend that the appellants were neither necessary nor proper parties, and that filing successive applications for impleadment amounted to an abuse of process.

The Supreme Court noted that since the former owner of the suit property had been impleaded as the first defendant, and the appellants had subsequently acquired that owner's interest through a registered sale deed during the pendency of the suit, they stepped into the shoes of the transferor. The Court found that the appellants had sufficient legal interest to defend in the suit.

Examining the nature of the reliefs claimed, the bench held that the principal prayer in the suit was for a declaration of tenancy status over the property, and such a declaration could not be granted in the absence of the owner. “In this backdrop, the presence of the appellants as owners of the suit property was necessary in the suit and they were thus necessary parties,” it, thus, observed.

Further, the Court found fault with the trial court's reasoning that the dispute was essentially between the plaintiff and the State authorities and that no relief was claimed against the owner, holding that this approach ignored the principal relief of declaration sought in the plaint.

The Court also clarified that unprosecuted application rejection was on technical grounds and not on merits. It therefore did not operate as res judicata, nor did the pendency of a subsequent application during the earlier one's pendency affect its maintainability.

The bench further held that once the appellants were found to be necessary parties, the erroneous exercise of discretion causing legal prejudice to them warranted interference, and that the precedents relied upon by the plaintiff did not assist his case.

In the light of aforesaid, the Supreme Court set aside the orders of the trial court and that of the High Court, and directed to implead appellants as defendants in the suit.

“With a clarification that the suit shall be decided on its own merits without being influenced by any observations made herein, the Civil Appeal is allowed leaving the parties to bear their own costs. Pending interlocutory applications are also disposed of,” the bench clarified.

Case: Rasilaben & Anr. v Dinesh Deumal Harani & Ors

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 957

Click here to read the judgment

Appearance:

For Appellants: Mr. Nachiketa Joshi, Sr. Adv.; Mr. Ayush Anand, AOR; Ms. Sucheta Joshi, Adv.; Mr. Sai Shashank, Adv.; Ms. Sagrika Arya, Adv.; Ms. Ruchil Raj, Adv.

For Respondents: Dr. Alex Joseph, AOR; Mr. Mayank Dwivedi, Adv.; Ms. Dhruvi Sikarwar, Adv.; Ms. Albina Sebastian, Adv.; Ms. Supriya Verma, Adv.; Mrs. Sangeetha Mr, Adv.


Tags: