The Supreme Court bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan, recently held that a subsequent purchaser in a suit for specific performance may not be a “necessary party,” but can be considered a “proper party” if their rights are likely to be affected by the outcome of the proceedings.

The case stemmed from a complex property dispute involving competing claims arising from two Wills and multiple agreements to sell. The appellant, originally defendant No. 8, claimed ownership of the disputed property through a sale deed dated May 30, 2009 (registered March 29, 2014), executed by original defendant No. 3, who had earlier obtained probate of a Will dated February 3, 2001, executed by the testator, Late Mr. Indramohan Pradhan.

Contrarily, the original plaintiff asserted rights under a later Will dated July 7, 2001, which favored the testator’s sons (original defendants Nos. 1 and 2), who in turn agreed to sell the property to the plaintiff on November 5, 2006. Meanwhile, original defendant No. 4, the testator’s brother, also supported the validity of the later Will but claimed to have an agreement to purchase the property himself, dated May 18, 2007. Thus, the property became the subject of three competing claims.

The original plaintiff filed Regular Civil Suit No. 360‑A/2007 seeking specific performance and injunction. Subsequently, original defendant No. 4 initiated MJC No. 66/2008 to cancel the probate certificate and Regular Civil Suit No. 401‑A/2010 seeking specific performance, declaration, and injunction. In all three suits, original defendant No. 8 filed applications under Order I Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) seeking impleadment, which were allowed by the Trial Court in 2018.

However, original defendant No. 4 challenged these orders before the High Court, which, exercising its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution, set aside the Trial Court’s orders. The High Court also dismissed defendant No. 8’s review petitions in December 2023. Aggrieved, defendant No. 8 approached the Supreme Court.

After considering the facts and the arguments presented by the parties, the Supreme Court, while interpreting the ambit of Order I Rule 10(2) of the Civil Procedure Code, relied on landmark judgments including Kasturi v. Iyyamperumal, Sumtibai v. Paras Finance, and Mumbai International Airport v. Regency Convention Centre. The Court emphasized the legal distinction that a “necessary party” is someone without whom no effective decree can be passed, while a “proper party” is one whose involvement facilitates a comprehensive and effective resolution of the disputes in the suit.

“A necessary party is a person in whose absence no effective decree could be passed at all by the court. Whereas a proper party is one who though not a necessary party is a person whose presence would enable the court to effectively and adequately adjudicate upon all matters in dispute in the suit,” the Court clarified.

The Court criticized the High Court’s interference, stating that doubts about the genuineness of the transaction between Mr. Sameer Ghosh and defendant No. 8 were matters of fact to be determined at trial—not issues warranting dismissal at the stage of impleadment.

“We may only say that insofar as the transaction between (Late) Mr. Sameer Ghosh and the original defendant no. 8 (appellant herein) is concerned, the same shall be a subject matter of trial. We do not express any opinion in this regard at this point of time. We may only say that the presence of the appellant in the suit is required for proper and effective adjudication of the dispute in the suit. We say so while giving additional regard to the fact that the original plaintiff has not opposed the impleadment of the original defendant no. 8 in his suit,” the Court observed.

Ultimately, the Supreme Court allowed the appeals, setting aside the High Court's orders dated June 12, 2023, and December 12, 2023, and restoring the Trial Court’s decision to implead original defendant No. 8 in the suit.

Case Details: M/s J N Real Estate Vs. Shailendra Pradhan & Ors. Civil Appeal Nos. 5405-5406 OF 2025

Advocate for Petitioner: Mr. C.U. Singh, Sr. Adv. Mr. Gaurav Agarwal, Sr.Adv. Mr. S.Sukumar, Adv. Mr. Sreegesh M.K., Adv. Mr. Anand Sukumar, AOR Mr. Bhupesh Kumar Pathak, Adv. Mrs. Ruche Anand, Adv.

Advocate for Respondent: Mr. Navin Pahwa, Sr. Adv. Mr. Vivek Singh, AOR Mr. Ritik Dwivedi, Adv. Ms. Tanvi Anand, Adv. Ms. Rida Shafique, Adv. Ms. Prerna Priyadarshini, AOR Mr. Syed Faraz Alam, Adv. Mr. Atharva Gaur, Adv. Mr. Aayushman Aggarwal, Adv.