Impleadment of JCS: Land Dispute Resolution Case

In a significant legal battle over land ownership, the Supreme Court of India delivered a consequential judgment concerning the impleadment of JCS in the ongoing dispute resolution case. The case revolves around the disputed sale of land and the involvement of MMT’s legal heirs and other parties. The decision holds critical implications for the rights and interests at stake in this intricate legal scenario.


  • JCS purchased the land from MMT for Rs.10,00,000 on 23.03.2007.
  • Sui land was under dispute due to a sale by ARL under a power of attorney which MMT challenged in Civil Suit No.89 of 2006.
  • During the suit, a Court Commissioner reported that MMT was still in possession of the land and had not authorized the sale to ARL.
  • MMT’s legal heirs were accused of trying to occupy the land in collusion with the appellants.
  • After JCS filed an application for impleadment, MMT’s legal heirs executed a declaration deed in favor of appellants confirming the sale deed of 29.01.2005.
  • MMT passed away on 02.06.2007.
  • The trial court dismissed JCS’s application for impleadment, stating he was not a necessary or proper party.
  • The trial court suggested that JCS could file a separate suit as a fresh cause of action arose in his favour.
  • JCS then filed a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution before the High Court.
  • The High Court allowed JCS’s petition mainly because the legal heirs of MMT could withdraw from the suit, but JCS’s rights would be impacted.

Also Read: Enforcement of Foreign Award: Case of Oscar Investments Limited and RHC Holding Private Limited


  • JCS was entitled to be impleaded as a party in the suit.
  • The substitution should have been ordered in terms of Order XXII Rule 10 CPC.
  • The plaintiff cannot be stopped from withdrawing the plaint.
  • No party can force the plaintiff to add another plaintiff with him.
  • There was a clash of interest between the plaintiffs themselves.
  • The trial court was correct in holding that the plaintiff should file a separate suit to assert his rights.
  • If JCS is permitted to be added as plaintiff no. 2, there will be an inter se conflict.
  • Mr. Huzefa Ahmadi, senior counsel for the respondents, argues for the substitution of the plaintiff who purchased the land from MMT.
  • He emphasizes that there is no conflict between the respondent’s case and MMT’s original claim.
  • The disagreement arises due to the actions of MMT’s legal heirs, who allegedly colluded with the defendant-appellants.
  • MMT’s sale of land to the appellants through a power of attorney is disputed by both MMT and the power of attorney.
  • Shri Ahmadi points out that MMT’s failure to register lis pendens and the assurance of no legal proceedings in the sale deed support JCS’s status as a bona fide purchaser.

Also Read: Case of Eligibility for Disability Pension: Air Force Officer’s Retirement


  • JCS claimed MMT sold the land for Rs.10,00,000/- by cheque.
  • Application wrongly filed under Order I Rule 10 CPC instead of Order XXII Rule 10 CPC.
  • MMT assigned rights and interest in the land to JCS.
  • JCS, as assignee, had the right to be impleaded as a plaintiff in place of MMT.
  • Effect of legal heirs of MMT withdrawing the suit.
  • JCS need not challenge the settlement as it doesn’t create any title for the parties.
  • Trial court should not have dismissed the application by JCS.
  • Settlement reached between legal heirs and appellants before withdrawal of the suit.
  • Trial court considered both applications together.
  • JCS had vital interest in the suit and the right to continue it.
  • Application filed by JCS to be joined as plaintiff no. 2 in the suit.
  • Settlement agreement showed no transfer of interest to the appellants.
  • In cases where there is an assignment, creation, or devolution of any interest during a pending suit, the court may allow the suit to continue with the new party involved.
  • If a decree is attached while an appeal is pending, the person who attached the decree will benefit from the continuation of the suit under sub-rule (1).
  • JCS had a vital interest in the suit based on the issues at hand.
  • The decision on whether MMT had authorized the sale of the land by respondent no. 3 and if the sale actually occurred can only be resolved in this suit.
  • A fresh suit filed by JCS would not be able to address the specific issues at stake in this case.
  • The withdrawal of respondent nos. 2(A) to 2(D) from the suit does not impact the rights of JCS.
  • JCS is entitled to continue with the suit even after the compromise and withdrawal of other respondents.

Also Read: Judgment by Supreme Court On Man Singh vs. State of India


  • Interim order dated 06.07.2009 stands vacated.
  • Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.
  • The appeal is dismissed.


Case Number: C.A. No.-010521-010521 / 2013

Click here to read/download original judgement

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *