16-Sulthan Said Ibrahim vs. Prakasan & Ors. – Supreme Court of India Judgment

Case Number
CIVIL APPEAL/7108/2025

Case Title
Sulthan Said Ibrahim vs. Prakasan & Ors.

Headnote
The Supreme Court addressed the issue of a party seeking deletion from legal proceedings at a very late stage, after having participated in them for years without objection. The appellant, who was impleaded as a legal heir of the original defendant in an execution proceeding, later filed an application to be removed from the case, claiming he was not a legal heir under Mohammedan Law and was an independent tenant of the property. The Court held that the appellant’s application was barred by the principle of res judicata. Having failed to object to his impleadment at the appropriate time as provided under Order XXII Rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Code, he could not re-agitate the same issue at a later stage. The Court emphasized that a party cannot use procedural rules to delay and obstruct the execution of a decree that has attained finality. The Court also rejected the appellant’s claim of tenancy as a belated and dubious tactic, noting the lack of evidence and his prior participation in the proceedings without raising this claim.

Court
Supreme Court of India

Type
Judgment

SCR Citation
NA

Neutral Citation
2025 INSC 764

Disposal Nature
Appeal Dismissed

Case Type
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL)

Law Type
Civil Law, Property Law, Procedural Law

Judgment Authored by
Hon’ble Justice J. B. Pardiwala*
Hon’ble Justice R. Mahadevan

Date of Judgment
May 23, 2025

Case Start Date
NA

Case Arising From
The appeal originates from a judgment and order of the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam, dated November 29, 2021. The High Court had dismissed an original petition (OP(C) No. 2290 of 2013) filed by the appellant. This petition challenged an order from the Principal Sub Judge, Palakkad, which had rejected the appellant’s application (I.A. No. 2348/2012) to have his name deleted from the list of parties in a suit for specific performance (O.S. No. 617/1996). The appellant had been impleaded as a legal heir of the original defendant.

Background and Facts
The case involves a dispute over a property for which an agreement to sell was executed in 1996 between the original plaintiff (respondent no. 1) and the original defendant (the appellant’s grandmother, Late Jameela Beevi). The appellant was a witness to this agreement. The plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance, which was eventually decreed in his favor. This decree was upheld all the way to the Supreme Court.

During the execution proceedings, the original defendant passed away, and her legal heirs, including the appellant, were brought on record in 2008. The appellant did not object to being included as a legal heir at that time. However, four years later, in 2012, after various other legal challenges by the heirs had failed, the appellant filed an application to be removed from the case. He claimed that under Mohammedan Law, as the son of a pre-deceased son, he was not a legal heir to his grandmother. He also claimed for the first time that he was an independent tenant of the property and his rights could not be decided in the execution proceedings.

Timeline

• June 14, 1996: Agreement to sell was executed between the original plaintiff and the original defendant.
• 1996: The plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance (O.S. No. 617/1996).
• June 30, 1998: The suit was initially decreed ex-parte.
• March 17, 2003: After the ex-parte decree was set aside, the suit was decreed again after a full trial.
• August 13, 2008: The decree for specific performance became final after the Supreme Court dismissed the defendant’s appeal.
• October 19, 2008: The original defendant passed away.
• November 20, 2008: The appellant and other legal heirs were brought on record in the execution proceedings.
• July 19, 2012: The appellant filed an application (I.A. No. 2348 of 2012) to be deleted from the array of parties.
• June 19, 2013: The Trial Court dismissed the appellant’s application.
• November 29, 2021: The High Court of Kerala dismissed the appellant’s petition challenging the Trial Court’s order.
• May 23, 2025: The Supreme Court dismissed the present appeal.

Parties Involved

• Appellant: Sulthan Said Ibrahim (Grandson of the original defendant)
• Respondent: Prakasan & Ors. (Original Plaintiff and other legal heirs)

Procedural History

• Lower Court/Subordinate court/Tribunals Decisions: The Principal Sub Judge, Palakkad, dismissed the appellant’s application to be deleted from the case. The judge found the application to be a “cunning strategy” to delay the execution of a decade-old decree and noted that the appellant had failed to raise this objection when he was first impleaded. The court held that the plea was barred by constructive res judicata.
• Appeals: The High Court of Kerala upheld the Trial Court’s decision, affirming that the appellant’s challenge was barred by res judicata as he had not objected to his impleadment earlier. The Supreme Court is now hearing the final appeal against the High Court’s order.

Issues Framed

1. Whether the High Court erred in rejecting the appellant’s petition on the ground that his application for deletion of his name was barred by res judicata?
2. Whether the appellant is entitled to the protection of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965, as a tenant?
3. Whether the transfer of possession of the suit property was implicit in the decree for specific performance?

Areas of Debate

1. Can a party who was impleaded as a legal heir without objection later seek to be removed from the proceedings on the ground that they are not a legal heir under personal law?
2. Does the principle of res judicata apply to different stages within the same legal proceeding, specifically to an order of impleadment that was not challenged?
3. Can a claim of independent tenancy be raised for the first time during execution proceedings by a party who was a witness to the original sale agreement and participated in earlier stages of the litigation without raising this claim?

Cases Cited
On behalf of the Appellant:

1. Birma Devi & Ors v. Subhash & Anr. (2024 SCC Online SC 3676): Cited to argue that the relief of possession must be specifically sought in a suit for specific performance.
2. P.C. Varghese v. Devaki Amma Balambika Devi ((2005) 8 SCC 486): Cited in the context of pleading rules under the Specific Relief Act to avoid multiple proceedings.
3. B. Bal Reddy v. Teegala Narayana Reddy ((2016) 15 SCC 102): Cited to argue that the rights of a protected tenant continue until the tenancy is validly terminated.
4. Mumbai International Airport (P) Ltd. v. Regency Convention Centre & Hotels (P) Ltd. ((2010) 7 SCC 417): Cited to argue that an order of impleadment is a summary procedure and does not act as res judicata, and the court can strike out parties at any stage.
5. Ramankutty Guptan v. Avara ((1994) 2 SCC 642): Cited to argue that the court’s jurisdiction does not end after passing a decree for specific performance.

On behalf of the Respondent:
NA

Acts/Rules/Orders Referred

1. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC)
   • Type: Act
   • Order I Rule 10(2): Empowers the court to strike out or add parties at any stage of the proceedings. The appellant filed his application for deletion under this provision. The Supreme Court held that while the power is wide, it cannot be used to re-agitate an issue that has already been conclusively decided at a previous stage, such as an unchallenged impleadment order.
   • Order XXII Rule 4: Governs the procedure for impleading legal representatives of a deceased defendant. The Court noted that sub-rule (2) provides an opportunity for the impleaded person to raise any defense regarding their character as a legal representative. The appellant failed to use this remedy at the appropriate time.
   • Order XXII Rule 5: States that any question about whether a person is a legal representative shall be determined by the court. The Court pointed out that the appellant should have raised this question when he was first impleaded.
2. Specific Relief Act, 1963 (SRA)
   • Type: Act
   • Section 22: Relates to the power to grant relief for possession in a suit for specific performance.
   • Section 28: Deals with the rescission of a contract for the sale of immovable property.
3. Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965
   • Type: Act
   • Section 11: Provides protection to tenants from eviction, except through the procedure established by the Act. The appellant claimed protection under this section, but the Court rejected it as a belated and unsubstantiated claim.

Acts/Rules/Orders Governing the Case
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908

Literature Citation
NA

Appearances

• Advocates:
  • For the Appellant: Mr. V. Chitambaresh, Senior Counsel
  • For the Respondent No. 1: Mr. Mukund P. Unny, Counsel
• Witnesses: NA
• Other Persons: NA

Prayer
The appellant prayed for his name to be deleted from the array of parties in the execution proceedings.

Evidence & Findings

1. Evidence: Agreement to sell dated June 14, 1996.
   • Description: The original agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant.
   • Findings: The appellant was a witness to this agreement. The Court found this significant because the agreement did not mention any tenancy rights, and the appellant’s presence as a witness without raising any claim at that time weakened his later assertion of being a tenant.
   • Page/Paragraph: Paragraph 63.
2. Evidence: Municipality License No. PH2-27607/11 issued in 2011.
   • Description: A license relied upon by the appellant to show his possession of the property.
   • Findings: The Court found this to be of little value, as it was issued long after the suit had been decreed and during the pendency of execution proceedings. It was seen as a tactic to create evidence to delay the proceedings.
   • Page/Paragraph: Paragraph 63.

Petitioner/Appellant/Plaintiff/Accused Arguments
The appellant argued that the High Court was wrong to apply the principle of res judicata to his application for deletion. He claimed that an impleadment order is merely procedural and does not prevent the court from correcting an error later. His main contentions were:

1. Under Mohammedan Law, he is not a legal heir to his grandmother (the original defendant) and therefore was wrongly impleaded.
2. He has an independent right as a tenant of the property, inherited from his father, and this right cannot be decided in the execution of a specific performance decree against his grandmother.
3. Since the original decree did not explicitly grant the relief of possession, the decree was fully satisfied once the sale deed was executed, and possession cannot be claimed now.

Respondent/Defendant/Opponent/State Arguments
The respondent argued that the appeal was a frivolous attempt to delay the execution of a decree that had been final for over a decade. Key arguments were:

1. The appellant’s application was barred by res judicata because he had the opportunity to object to his impleadment in 2008 but chose to remain silent and participate in the proceedings for years.
2. The claim of tenancy is a belated and baseless afterthought, unsupported by any credible evidence. The appellant’s role as a witness to the 1996 sale agreement, which made no mention of tenancy, contradicts this claim.
3. The appellant and his family have been abusing the legal process by filing multiple applications to stall the execution.

Ratio Decidendi

1. The principle of res judicata applies not only to separate lawsuits but also to different stages within the same proceeding. An order of impleadment, made after due inquiry and not challenged by the party, becomes final and binding. A party cannot be allowed to re-agitate the same issue at a later stage.
2. A party aggrieved by an impleadment order must raise objections at the earliest opportunity as provided under the Code of Civil Procedure (specifically Order XXII Rule 4). A belated application under Order I Rule 10 cannot be used to circumvent a previously settled issue.
3. A claim of an independent right, such as tenancy, raised for the first time after many years of litigation and without any supporting evidence, especially by a party who was a witness to the original transaction, is to be viewed as a dubious tactic to obstruct justice.
4. In a decree for specific performance of a contract for sale, the relief of possession is implicit, especially when the property is in the possession of the contracting party (the defendant). A separate prayer for possession is not always necessary.

Final Decision
The appeal is dismissed with costs of ₹25,000 to be paid by the appellant. The Executing Court is directed to ensure that vacant and peaceful possession of the suit property is handed over to the respondent no. 1 within two months, with police aid if necessary.

Legal Jargons and Maxims

1. Res Judicata: A legal principle meaning “a matter judged.” It prevents the same issue from being litigated again between the same parties once a final judgment has been made.
2. Ex-parte: A legal proceeding where only one party is present or represented.
3. Inter alia: A Latin phrase meaning “among other things.”
4. Suo Motu: A Latin term meaning “on its own motion,” referring to an action taken by a court without a request from any party.
5. Bona fides: A Latin term meaning “good faith.” It signifies honesty and sincerity of intention.

Exhibits
NA