Supreme Court Holds That Appeal Does Not Abate for Non-Substitution of One Legal Heir When the Estate of the Deceased Vendor Is Substantially Represented and Earlier Orders Rejecting Abatement Operate as Res Judicata
Case Name: Kishorilal (D) Thr. LRs & Ors. v. Gopal & Ors. (with connected appeal)
Citation: 2026 INSC 48
Date of Judgment/Order: 12 January 2026
Bench: Justice Manoj Misra and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan
Held: The Supreme Court held that an appeal arising out of a suit for specific performance does not abate merely because the legal representatives of one of the heirs of a deceased vendor were not substituted within limitation, when the estate of the deceased vendor was substantially represented on record by other legal heirs and transferees lis pendens, and when earlier interlocutory orders of the High Court had expressly rejected the plea of abatement, thereby operating as res judicata at a later stage of the same proceedings.
Summary: The appeals arose from dismissal of first appeals by the Madhya Pradesh High Court on the ground of abatement due to non-substitution of the legal representatives of Murarilal, one of the heirs of the original vendor Kishorilal, in a suit decreed for specific performance. Kishorilal had died during pendency of the appeal and all his heirs were initially brought on record; subsequently, Murarilal died and his heirs were impleaded later as pro forma respondents. Earlier, the High Court had categorically held that the appeal had not abated since other heirs and transferees lis pendens sufficiently represented the vendor’s estate. Despite this, the appeal was later dismissed as abated. The Supreme Court examined Order XXII CPC, the doctrine of lis pendens, the requirement of vendor participation in decrees for specific performance, and binding precedents on substantial representation and res judicata, and held that non-substitution of one heir does not cause abatement when the estate remains adequately represented and executable relief is not rendered impossible.
Decision: The appeals were allowed, the impugned orders of the High Court dated 12.09.2017 dismissing the appeals as abated were set aside, First Appeal Nos. 213 of 2000 and 217 of 2000 were restored to their original numbers, and the High Court was directed to decide them on merits in accordance with law, with all pending applications disposed of.