The Supreme Court clarified the distinction between necessary and proper parties under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Code, emphasizing that even if a party is not necessary, their presence can be vital for effective adjudication.

ORDER :

J.B. PARDIWALA, J. :

1. Leave granted.

2. These appeals arise from the orders passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur dated 12.12.2023 and 12.06.2023 respectively, in Review Petition No. 717 of 2023 and Miscellaneous Petition No.5567/2018 respectively, by which the petition filed by the respondent No.1 herein (original defendant no. 4) came to be allowed and thereby the order dated 14.03.2018 passed by the Trial Court impleading the present appellant as one of the defendants in the suit came to be quashed and set aside.

3. For the sake of convenience, the appellant herein shall be referred to as the original defendant No.8, respondent No.1 herein shall be referred to as the original defendant No.4 and the respondent No.2 herein as the original plaintiff.

4. It is the case of the defendant no. 8 that one (Late) Mr. Indramohan Pradhan executed a will dated 03.02.2001 pertaining to the suit property in favour of one (Late) Mr. Sameer Ghosh (original defendant no. 3) who took care of him during his old age and ailing health. The original defendant no. 3 had applied for obtaining a probate on the basis of the said Will in the Court of the 9th Additional District Judge, Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh and the same was allowed vide order dated 28.04.2005. A probate certificate dated 13.05.2005 with respect to the Will dated 03.02.2001 was also granted to the original defendant no.3.

5. Thereafter, it is stated that the original defendant no. 3 entered into an agreement to sell with respect to the same property in favour of the original defendant no. 8 for a sum of Rs. 78 Lakh, which was paid in two installments of Rs. 59 Lakh and Rs. 19 Lakh respectively. It is argued that a sale deed dated 30.05.2009 was also executed to that effect. However, the same came to be registered only on 29.03.2014. In such circumstances, the original defendant no. 8 contends that by virtue of the aforesaid sale deed, the title, interests and rights associated with the suit property were transferred its favour.

6. On the other hand, it is the case of the original plaintiff that the testator i.e., Mr. Indramohan Pradhan executed a different Will dated 07.07.2001 in favour of his two sons i.e., original defendant nos. 1 and 2, whereby the suit property was bequeathed to them. Thereafter, the original defendant nos. 1 and 2 entered into an agreement to sell dated 05.11.2006 with the original plaintiff, through which he obtained all rights with respect to the suit property.

7. Although the original defendant no. 4, who is the brother of the testator, agrees with the original plaintiff that the sons of the testator, i.e., original defendant nos. 1 and 2 respectively, acquired rights with respect to the suit property through the will dated 07.07.2001, yet it is his case that the sons had subsequently, entered into an agreement to sell dated 18.05.2007 with respect to the same suit property in his favour instead.

8. Therefore, we have three different parties asserting their individual title over the suit property.

9. It appears from the materials on record that, on 01.10.2007, the original plaintiff, namely Adarsh Malhotra, has instituted Regular Civil Suit No. 360-A/2007 in the Court of 8th District Judge, District-Bhopal for specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 05.11.2006 in his favour and for permanent injunction. In the said suit, he has prayed for the