The Supreme Court of India holds that the suit is not bad for non-joinder of necessary parties if the joint interest is fully represented.

The court case revolves around the joint interest contested by three defendants. The first two defendants fully represent the joint interest, and even after the adverse judgment in the suit, they prefer an appeal before the High Court. In the context of the situation, the court refers to previous cases where the estate of the deceased was sufficiently represented, and non-substitution of all the legal heirs did not abate the appeal. Applying the same analogy, the court rejects the contention that the suit should have abated due to the non-substitution of all the legal heirs of the deceased third defendant.

The court also rejects the claim that the suit was bad for non-joinder of necessary parties due to the failure to bring on record the legal representatives of the deceased third defendant.

” We have absolutely no hesitation to hold that the original defendants failed to raise sufficient and appropriate pleadings in the written statement that they have better right for possession of the suit properties. No amount of proof offered without appropriate pleadings would have any relevance. The Courts below have rightly relied on the evidence of PW-5 to hold forceful dispossession of the defendants from ‘B’ schedule property. Nothing is on record to uphold the said finding.”

Shivshankara & Anr. …Appellants
H.P. Vedavyasa Char …Respondent
decided by the Supreme Court of India on 29.03.23


Sanjiv Narang Adv. is an Advocate on Record in the Supreme Court of India. His qualifications include an LLB from University of Delhi and a Masters degree in Personnel Management from Panjab University,Chandigarh.In his more than 3 decades of experience, he has practiced law at the District, High Court and Supreme Court levels.He also has more than a decade of experience in the field of Management. He is the author of two books namely Laws for Women in India and Innovation, Why What and How.