SUPREME COURT DISMISSES APPEAL IN LAND DISPUTE CASE, DIRECTS DELIVERY OF POSSESSION

Delivering the judgment, a Bench comprising Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan upheld the decisions of both the Trial Court and the Kerala High Court, which had denied the appellant's plea for deletion from the party array and rejected his claim of tenancy rights. The Court observed that the appellant’s belated challenge to his impleadment as a legal heir was barred by the doctrine of res judicata and lacked bona fides.

The dispute stemmed from a 1996 agreement for sale of a small commercial property, which was followed by an ex-parte decree in 1998, and a contested final decree in 2003 directing the execution of a sale deed. Despite multiple affirmations by appellate courts, the execution was delayed due to a series of legal objections by the legal heirs of the original defendant, including the present appellant.

The Court categorically held that the relief of possession was implicit in the decree for specific performance and ordered the executing court to ensure that vacant possession be handed over to the decree-holder within two months. The appeal was dismissed with costs of ₹25,000 to be paid to the Legal Services Authority.

The decision reaffirms the finality of decrees under specific performance and curbs attempts to delay execution through repetitive and frivolous litigation.

Let me know if you'd like it formatted for publication or converted into another format (PDF, DOCX, etc.).

You said:

extract it in 1000 words

ChatGPT said:

Here is a 1000-word news article extracted and composed from the Supreme Court judgment in Sulthan Said Ibrahim v. Prakasan & Ors., delivered on May 23, 2025:

Supreme Court Dismisses Appeal in Protracted Land Dispute; Orders Handover of Possession

New Delhi, May 23, 2025 – The Supreme Court of India has brought finality to a protracted legal dispute spanning nearly three decades, dismissing an appeal filed by Sulthan Said Ibrahim and directing the delivery of possession of a small commercial property in Palakkad, Kerala, to the original plaintiff, Prakasan. The civil appeal arose from a longstanding execution proceeding and a contested impleadment of the appellant as a legal heir, which the Court found to be part of a calculated strategy to delay justice.

Background of the Case

The dispute traces back to a 1996 agreement to sell between Jameela Beevi (the original defendant) and Prakasan (the original plaintiff), whereby Beevi agreed to transfer ownership of a one-cent plot comprising a small shop in Palakkad for ₹6,00,000. The plaintiff claimed to have paid ₹4,50,000 upfront and was ready and willing to pay the balance of ₹1,50,000. However, the defendant failed to execute the sale deed, compelling the plaintiff to file a suit for specific performance.

The suit (O.S. No. 617 of 1996) was initially decreed ex parte in 1998. Although the ex parte decree was set aside upon appeal, the suit was finally decreed again in 2003 after a contested trial. This decree was upheld in successive appeals, including by the Kerala High Court and ultimately the Supreme Court in 2008.

Despite the decree achieving finality in law, the plaintiff was unable to obtain possession of the suit property due to repeated challenges and interlocutory applications filed by the legal heirs of the deceased defendant. The current appeal by Sulthan Said Ibrahim stems from an application he filed in 2012 seeking deletion of his name from the array of parties, which was dismissed by both the Trial Court and the High Court.

Arguments by the Appellant

Represented by Senior Advocate V. Chitambaresh, the appellant contended that he was wrongly impleaded as a legal heir of Jameela Beevi, asserting that under Mohammedan law, a grandson through a predeceased son is not a legal heir of his grandmother. He also claimed tenancy rights over the property, having allegedly inherited such rights from his father, Late Shahul Hameed, who had been a tenant since 1969.

The appellant argued that the sale deed executed as part of the specific performance decree did not entitle the plaintiff to possession, especially when the possession was allegedly held by a third party tenant. He further argued that tenancy rights cannot be adjudicated in execution proceedings and referred to the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965, to assert protection against eviction without due process under the statute.

The appellant relied on several Supreme Court precedents to support his claims, including Birma Devi v. Subhash, P.C. Varghese v. Devaki Amma, and Mumbai International Airport v. Regency Convention Centre, to establish that impleadment orders could be challenged and that possession cannot be granted unless explicitly sought.

Respondent’s Stand

On the other hand, the respondent’s counsel, Mr. Mukund P. Unny, countered that the appeal was yet another delay tactic in a suit that had already been decreed in 2003 and had attained finality in 2008. He submitted that the appellant had ample opportunity to challenge his impleadment in 2008 when legal heirs were added, but failed to do so. He had also participated in related proceedings, including an application for rescission of contract, without raising objections to his impleadment.

The respondent emphasized that the claim of tenancy was a recent concoction, unsupported by contemporaneous evidence. While the appellant relied on municipal licenses issued in 1992 and 2011, the Court noted that the latter license was obtained during the pendency of execution proceedings, raising doubts about its credibility.

Findings of the Court

Delivering the judgment, Justice J.B. Pardiwala, speaking for the Bench, held that the application for deletion from party array was barred by res judicata, given the appellant’s failure to object to his impleadment when it originally occurred in 2008. The Court explained that impleadment under Order XXII Rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) carries with it the opportunity to raise objections regarding legal heirship, and once such opportunity is not exercised, the issue attains finality.

Citing Bhanu Kumar Jain v. Archana Kumar, the Court reiterated that the doctrine of res judicata applies not just to separate proceedings, but also to different stages within the same proceeding. Thus, the appellant could not now be allowed to reopen an issue that was settled by judicial inquiry more than a decade ago.

The Court also rejected the claim of tenancy. It observed that the appellant, who was a witness to the agreement to sell in 1996, never raised a tenancy claim at that time or during earlier proceedings. Further, the agreement to sell made no reference to any tenancy—unlike the 1976 assignment deed that did. The Court held that the sudden appearance of a municipal license in 2011 did not establish any continuous or protected tenancy in the suit property.

Possession Implicit in Decree

Addressing the contention that possession was not part of the original decree, the Court clarified that when specific performance of a contract is decreed, and the seller was in exclusive possession of the property at the time of agreement, possession is deemed to be transferred implicitly upon execution of the sale deed. The Court cited its recent ruling in Rohit Kochhar v. Vipul Infrastructure Developers Ltd. to affirm that separate relief for possession is not always mandatory in such cases.

Conclusion and Directions

Concluding that both the High Court and the Trial Court had committed no error in rejecting the appellant’s claims, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal with a cost of ₹25,000 to be paid by the appellant to the Legal Services Authority within two weeks.

Importantly, the Court directed the Executing Court to ensure that vacant and peaceful possession of the suit property be delivered to the decree-holder within two months, with police assistance if necessary.

This judgment marks the end of a judicial journey that began in 1996 and underscores the Court’s intolerance for tactics aimed at delaying execution of decrees. It reinforces the principles of finality in litigation, sanctity of judicial determinations, and the necessity of honoring decrees that have withstood the test of multiple appeals.