Court’s Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the orders passed by the Kerala High Court and the Trial Court, rejecting the appellant’s application for deletion from the array of parties under Order I Rule 10(2) CPC. The Court held:
“When a party is impleaded as a legal heir under Order XXII Rule 4 after due inquiry by the court and without any objections, the party cannot subsequently seek deletion from the array by filing an application under Order I Rule 10.”
It directed the Executing Court to ensure delivery of vacant and peaceful possession of the suit property to the decree holder within two months, with police assistance if required. The appeal was dismissed with costs of ₹25,000.
Facts
- The original suit was for specific performance of a 1996 sale agreement executed between the original plaintiff and the defendant (grandmother of the appellant), for a shop property in Palakkad, Kerala.
- The agreement stipulated transfer of property on payment of ₹1.5 lakhs within three months.
- The Trial Court initially passed an ex parte decree in 1998, later restored for trial on the defendant’s application.
- The suit was decreed in 2003; appeals by the defendant were dismissed up to the Supreme Court in 2008.
- The original defendant died in 2008. The appellant was impleaded as a legal heir without objection.
- The execution proceedings were initiated by the decree holder. The appellant sought deletion from the party array in 2012, claiming he was not a legal heir but a tenant.
Issues
- Whether the application under Order I Rule 10 seeking deletion from the party array was barred by res judicata?
- Whether the appellant could claim protection under the Kerala Rent Control Act?
- Whether possession of the suit property was implicit in the decree for specific performance?
Petitioner’s Arguments
- The appellant was wrongly impleaded as a legal heir under Muslim law, which does not recognize the grandson (via a predeceased son) as a legal heir of the grandmother.
- He was a tenant by inheritance from his father since 1969 and not a party to the contract.
- The absence of an express direction for possession meant the decree was satisfied with execution of the sale deed.
- Cited decisions in Birma Devi, P.C. Varghese, Bal Reddy, and Mumbai Airport to support his right to seek deletion and assert tenancy.
Respondent’s Arguments
- The appellant never objected at the time of impleadment and actively participated in proceedings for four years.
- The claim of tenancy was raised only after other applications failed and was aimed solely at delaying execution.
- The 1976 deed mentions tenancy of appellant’s father but the 1996 agreement (to which appellant was a witness) does not.
- Municipality licenses issued post-suit and during execution cannot substantiate tenancy.
- The sale deed was executed in 2022, but possession was unlawfully withheld by the appellant.
Analysis of the Law
- Order I Rule 10(2) CPC allows addition or deletion of parties at any stage, but this power cannot be used to revisit issues already settled under Order XXII Rule 4.
- Under Order XXII Rule 4(2), an impleaded party may contest their status as legal heir during the inquiry, which the appellant failed to do.
- The Court cited Ramesh Hirachand Kundanmal and Bhanu Kumar Jain to clarify that once impleadment is final, it cannot be reopened.
- Reiterated the principle of res judicata from Satyadhyan Ghosal and Ramachandra Rao, emphasizing finality in judicial decisions.
- The plea of tenancy raised after a decade, unsupported by contemporaneous evidence, was deemed frivolous.
- The decision in Jethabhai Zalavadiya was distinguished based on differing facts — there the suit itself was defective; here, impleadment occurred during valid proceedings.
Precedent Analysis
- Ramesh Hirachand Kundanmal v. Municipal Corporation — Addition/deletion of parties must be exercised judiciously.
- Bhanu Kumar Jain v. Archana Kumar — Res judicata applies within stages of same proceedings.
- Satyadhyan Ghosal — Judicial decisions once rendered must be accepted as correct unless reversed on appeal.
- Moolla Cassim — Under Muslim law, grandchildren via predeceased sons do not inherit from grandparents.
- Rohit Kochhar v. Vipul Infrastructure Developers — Relief of possession is implicit where defendant is in exclusive possession.
Court’s Reasoning
- The appellant had ample opportunity to challenge his impleadment under Order XXII but chose not to.
- His subsequent application under Order I Rule 10 is hit by res judicata, having remained silent despite participating in multiple related proceedings.
- Raising tenancy claims at a belated stage and producing no pre-litigation records was a strategy to delay execution.
- The possession of the suit property was with the original defendant when the decree was passed, hence, the decree for specific performance included implicit relief for possession.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court held that:
- The application under Order I Rule 10 was barred by res judicata.
- The plea of tenancy lacked merit and was raised only to obstruct execution.
- The original plaintiff is entitled to possession, which is implicit in the specific performance decree.
Implications
- Parties cannot delay execution by raising objections after failing to act at the appropriate procedural stage.
- Orders under Order XXII Rule 4 after due inquiry cannot be reopened through Order I Rule 10.
- Relief of possession may be implicit in a decree of specific performance where the seller had exclusive possession.