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
Versus
H.P. Vedavyasa Char …Respondent decided by the Supreme Court of India on 29.03.23