Subsequent Purchaser as Proper Party in Specific Performance Suits: Supreme Court’s Perspective

 By Abhishek Jat, Advocate

Background

The Supreme Court, in the matter of M/S J N Real Estate v. Shailendra Pradhan & Ors. (Civil Appeal Nos. 5405-5406 of 2025), addressed the question of whether a subsequent purchaser of property should be added as a party to a suit for specific performance, even though such a purchaser may not be strictly necessary for the suit’s outcome.

Factual Matrix

The dispute revolved around agricultural land originally owned by Indramohan Pradhan. Conflicting claims arose due to two separate wills and multiple agreements to sell, resulting in three parties asserting title over the same property:

• The appellant (original defendant no. 8), claiming ownership through a registered sale deed executed by a beneficiary under one will.
• The original plaintiff, who had entered into an agreement to purchase the property from the testator’s sons, beneficiaries under another will.
• The original defendant no. 4, who also claimed rights through a subsequent agreement to sell.

The appellant sought to be impleaded in the plaintiff’s suit for specific performance, arguing that the outcome would directly impact its title and interests.

Legal Issue

The core issue was whether the subsequent purchaser, whose title might be affected by the outcome, should be joined as a party to the suit for specific performance, even if not strictly indispensable to the relief sought by the plaintiff.

Supreme Court’s Reasoning

The Supreme Court clarified the distinction between a “necessary party” and a “proper party” in civil litigation:

• Necessary Party: A person in whose absence no effective decree can be made.
• Proper Party: A person whose presence enables the court to effectively and completely adjudicate all matters in dispute.

The Court observed that while the subsequent purchaser may not be a necessary party, their presence is essential for a comprehensive determination of the dispute, especially when the validity of their title is intertwined with the issues in the suit.

The Court also noted that the plaintiff did not oppose the appellant’s impleadment, and the trial court had allowed it. The High Court, however, set aside that order. The Supreme Court, recognizing the appellant’s substantial interest in the property and the potential impact of the suit’s outcome on its rights, restored the trial court’s decision to implead the appellant.

Case Laws Discussed

The Supreme Court referred to established principles regarding the addition of parties under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Code, emphasizing judicial discretion to join parties whose interests are at stake. The Court reaffirmed that a party with a bona fide claim or semblance of title may be added to ensure that all issues are conclusively resolved in a single proceeding.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision underscores the importance of including subsequent purchasers as proper parties in suits for specific performance when their rights may be affected. This approach ensures that all interested parties are heard, and the adjudication is both effective and final, reducing the risk of multiplicity of proceedings and inconsistent verdicts.

Glossary

• Specific Performance: A legal remedy compelling a party to execute the contract as agreed.
• Necessary Party: A party without whom no effective relief can be granted.
• Proper Party: A party whose presence aids in the complete resolution of the dispute.
• Order 1 Rule 10 CPC: Provision allowing courts to add or remove parties to ensure effective adjudication.
• Impleadment: The process of adding a party to ongoing litigation.