Not a Necessary Party but a Proper Party: Recent Supreme Court Clarification on Subsequent Purchasers in Specific Performance Suits

 In the realm of property disputes, specific performance suits are common remedies for buyers seeking enforcement when a seller breaches a sale agreement. A frequently contested scenario arises when the original vendor sells the disputed property to a third party before the suit concludes. This raises a crucial legal question: Is the subsequent purchaser a necessary party to the suit? Recent Supreme Court rulings have provided significant clarity on this issue, reshaping the litigation landscape for such cases.

Subsequent Purchaser: Necessary or Proper Party?

The Supreme Court in the case of M/S J N Real Estate v. Shailendra Pradhan & Ors. [2025 LiveLaw (SC) 519] categorically distinguished between a "necessary party" and a "proper party" in specific performance proceedings. A necessary party is one without whom the court cannot pass an effective decree, whereas a proper party is included to ensure comprehensive adjudication but whose absence does not invalidate the decree.

In specific performance suits, the subsequent purchaser is generally not a necessary party. This is because the original contract is solely between the plaintiff and the vendor, and the rights of a bona fide subsequent purchaser stand separately. However, if the subsequent purchaser’s legal rights are likely to be affected by the outcome, they may be impleaded as a proper party to bind them to the court’s decree and prevent multiplicity of litigation.

How Does the Decree Look Without the Subsequent Purchaser?

If the subsequent purchaser is not joined as a party, the decree of specific performance is passed against only the vendor. Pursuant to Section 19(b) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, the decree can still be enforced against anyone claiming under the defendant with a title arising subsequent to the contract—except a bona fide purchaser without notice of the original agreement.

The decree usually directs the vendor to execute the sale deed in favor of the plaintiff. In cases where the subsequent purchaser is joined, the court may order them to join in transferring the property, ensuring that the plaintiff’s rights are protected in totality.

Landmark Supreme Court Rulings

In M/S J N Real Estate v. Shailendra Pradhan & Ors. [2025 LiveLaw (SC) 519], the Supreme Court held that while it is not mandatory to join the subsequent purchaser as a necessary party, their joinder as a proper party is often prudent to bind their rights and forestall conflicting claims. The Court emphasized that the suit for specific performance focuses on enforcing the original contract against the vendor, not cancelling subsequent sales to innocent purchasers.

The Court also clarified that cancellation of sale deeds in favor of bona fide purchasers is not a required or usual relief in these suits. This nuanced distinction promotes fairness for all parties while securing the plaintiff’s contractual entitlement.

Practical Implications for Litigants

• Plaintiffs should consider impleading the subsequent purchaser as a proper party if their rights are likely to be impacted.

• Even without the subsequent purchaser’s presence, the decree can be effectuated against the vendor and executed against those claiming under them, barring bona fide purchasers without notice.

Print Page