The Supreme Court has clarified that an appeal does not abate for non-substitution of one of the legal heirs (LRs) of a deceased party if the estate of the deceased is otherwise “sufficiently represented” by other heirs and parties on record who have an interest in the property. Thus, a judicial determination on an issue made at one stage of a proceeding operates as res judicata at a subsequent stage of the same proceeding, precluding the court from re-adjudicating the same issue.
A Two-Judge Bench comprising Justice Manoj Misra and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan affirmed the legal principle that in a suit for specific performance, the vendor is a necessary party, even if the property has been transferred to a third party. The Bench said that a proper form of a decree requires the vendor to join in the conveyance to pass on any special covenants, and the subsequent transferee joins to pass on the title that resides in them.
The Bench drew a distinction between the non-substitution of all LRs of a deceased party and the non-substitution of only one of several heirs, and explained that if the interest of the deceased party is sufficiently represented by other heirs already on record, the proceeding does not abate.
In the present case, the Bench found that three out of four of the appellant’s heirs, along with the transferees lis pendens in whom the title resided, were on record. Therefore, the estate of appellant was sufficiently represented, and the appeal did not abate upon the non-substitution of Murarilal’s LRs in time.
The Bench stated that the principle of res judicata applies not only to subsequent proceedings but also to different stages of the same proceeding. Thus, the High Court, having already held in its order dated March 04, 2013 that the appeal had not abated, was barred from revisiting this issue at a later stage.
Briefly, case originates from Original Suit No. 5A of 1992, instituted by Gopal (first respondent) against Kishorilal (first appellant, now deceased) for specific performance of an agreement to purchase the suit property. During the pendency of this suit, Kishorilal sold the property to Brajmohan and Manoj (appellants in the connected appeal) via a sale-deed.
The Trial Court decreed the suit in favour of Gopal, which was challenged by Kishorilal and the transferees lis pendens (Brajmohan and Manoj) jointly before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh. During the appeal’s pendency, Kishorilal died and his LRs, including his son Murarilal, were substituted. Subsequently, Murarilal also died. Later, an application was filed to delete Murarilal’s name, but the High Court’s order contained a typographical error, directing the deletion of Kishorilal’s name instead.
The plaintiff-respondent, Gopal, filed an application to dismiss the appeal as having abated due to non-substitution of Murarilal’s LRs. The High Court dismissed this application, observing that the appeal had not abated because the estate was represented by the other LRs and the transferees. Later, the High Court allowed an application to implead Murarilal’s heirs as proforma respondents.
Despite these earlier orders, the High Court held that the appeal had abated and dismissed it. Consequently, a connected appeal, which arose from a suit for eviction filed by Brajmohan and Manoj against Gopal, was also dismissed on the same day.
Appearances:
AOR Pratibha Jain, for the Appellant
AOR Prashant Shukla Law Chambers, for the Respondent
