Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Court | Supreme Court of India |
| Case Number | C.A. No.-000172-000172 – 2026 |
| Diary Number | 40404/2017 |
| Judge Name | HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ MISRA |
| Bench | HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ MISRA; HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN |
| Precedent Value | Binding authority |
| Overrules / Affirms |
|
| Type of Law | Civil Procedure; specific performance of contract |
| Questions of Law |
|
| Ratio Decidendi |
The vendor remains a necessary party in a suit (and appeal) for specific performance even after transferring title to lis pendens transferees because he must execute any special covenants. Where a deceased vendor had multiple legal heirs, the appeal does not abate on non-substitution of one heir if the remaining heirs and transferees sufficiently represent his interest. An earlier binding order on representation cannot later be revisited; clerical mistakes in party-deletion orders can be corrected under inherent powers of the court. |
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court |
|
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
|
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts; all High Courts |
| Persuasive For | None (Supreme Court binding) |
| Overrules | High Court’s order dismissing F.A. No. 213/2000 and F.A. No. 217/2000 as abated |
| Distinguishes | Dwarka Prasad Singh v. Harikant Prasad Singh (1973) 1 SCC 179 |
| Follows | Mahabir Prasad v. Jage Ram (1971) 1 SCC 265; Bhurey Khan v. Yaseen Khan (1995 Supp 3 SCC 331) |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Clarifies that a specific performance appeal does not abate for non-substitution of one heir when other heirs and lis pendens transferees sufficiently represent the deceased vendor’s interest.
- Reaffirms that the vendor is a necessary party in specific performance suits/appeals even after transfer of title to third parties.
- Holds that once a court has ruled an appeal has not abated, res judicata binds subsequent stages of the same proceedings.
- Confirms that clerical or typographical errors in party-deletion orders may be corrected under Sections 151 and 152 CPC without fresh limitation or condonation applications.
- Emphasises that impleadment of heirs under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC can be allowed without setting aside abatement when no true abatement has occurred.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- Necessary party rule: In specific performance, vendor must join the conveyance to execute any special covenants (Lala Durga Prasad; Dwarka Prasad).
- Lis pendens transferee: Title is subservient; transferees lis pendens need not be parties but may represent the vendor’s estate.
- Sufficient representation: When multiple heirs exist, non-substitution of one does not abate the proceedings if other heirs and lis pendens transferees remain on record (Mahabir Prasad; Bhurey Khan).
- Res judicata across stages: A binding order on abatement cannot be reopened at a later stage of the same appeal (Satyadhyan Ghosal; Y.B. Patil; Bhanu Kumar Jain).
- Clerical correction: Courts can correct obvious typographical errors in party orders under inherent powers (Sections 151, 152 CPC).
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner (Appellants):
- Title in property had passed to lis pendens transferees who could represent the vendor’s estate.
- Three out of four heirs of vendor were on record, so no abatement on death of one heir.
- High Court’s order dated 04.03.2013 already held no abatement; res judicata bars reconsideration.
- Typographical error in deletion order could be corrected under inherent powers.
Respondent (Gopal):
- Vendor is a necessary party in a specific performance suit; non-substitution of any heir abates the appeal.
- Order deleting a party at risk and cost does not preclude subsequent adjudication on abatement.
- Abatement occurs by operation of law; impleadment without condonation does not revive the appeal.
- Delay in seeking to set aside abatement (over ten years) disentitles appellants to relief.
Factual Background
Gopal sued Kishorilal for specific performance of an agreement to purchase land. During the suit, Kishorilal conveyed the land to Brajmohan and Manoj (transferees lis pendens). The trial court decreed specific performance; the vendor and transferees jointly appealed. The vendor died, four legal heirs were substituted, and one heir (Murarilal) later died. A typographical error led to deletion of the wrong party’s name. The High Court found the appeal abated for non-substitution of one heir; the Supreme Court reversed, holding representation was sufficient.
Statutory Analysis
- Section 52, Transfer of Property Act, 1882: Transfer lis pendens is valid but subservient to decrees.
- Order 22, Rules 2, 4, 11 CPC: Substitution and deletion of parties upon death; clarifies correct party array.
- Order 1, Rule 10 CPC: Power to amend party-array for adding necessary/proper parties.
- Sections 151 & 152 CPC: Inherent power to correct clerical or arithmetical mistakes in orders.
Procedural Innovations
- Confirmation that impleadment of heirs under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC may be granted even after purported abatement if representation was sufficient.
- Clarification that res judicata applies across different stages of the same appeal, preventing replay of already-decided abatement issues without fresh cause.
- Affirmation that clerical mistakes in party-array orders can be rectified at any stage without a separate limitation or condonation regime.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed
- 🔄 Conflicting Decisions (distinguishes Dwarka Prasad Singh v. Harikant Prasad Singh)