Punjab & Haryana High Court: Legal Representatives of a Deceased Vendor Cannot Be Excluded from a Specific Performance Suit Merely Because the Plaintiff Gives Them Up; Order I Rule 10 CPC Must Ensure Effective Representation of the Estate

Case Name: Inderjeet Singh @ Inderjit Singh v. Smt. Kashmiri Yadav & Others

Date of Judgment: 30 July 2026

Citation: CR No. 3016 of 2024

Bench: Justice Deepak Gupta

Held: The Punjab & Haryana High Court held that in a suit for specific performance, the legal representatives of a deceased vendor constitute necessary parties whose presence is indispensable for an effective and executable decree. The plaintiff’s status as dominus litis does not confer an absolute right to exclude a legal representative where such exclusion would leave the estate of the deceased vendor unrepresented. A person who is admittedly a legal representative cannot be treated as a stranger merely because he also asserts rights under a Will. The Court clarified that disputes regarding the validity of the Will, transfer deed, succession, or title are matters for trial and cannot be conclusively determined while deciding an application under Order I Rule 10 CPC. The trial court, therefore, erred in refusing impleadment by treating the petitioner as a stranger instead of recognising his admitted status as one of the legal representatives of the deceased executant of the agreement to sell.

Summary: The dispute arose from a suit initially filed for permanent injunction based on an agreement to sell dated 1 October 2018, which was later amended into a suit for specific performance. During the pendency of the proceedings, the original vendor, Balbir Singh, executed a transfer deed in favour of his grandchildren and subsequently executed a registered Will in favour of his sons, including the petitioner. After Balbir Singh’s death, the plaintiff initially sought substitution of all his legal representatives but later withdrew that application after the grandchildren were impleaded and the petitioner was deliberately given up as a defendant pursuant to a compromise.

The petitioner thereafter sought impleadment under Order I Rule 10 CPC, asserting that he was one of the legal representatives of the deceased vendor and that his presence was essential for adjudication of the suit. The trial court rejected the application by relying on Kasturi v. Iyyamperumal, holding that title disputes could not be introduced in a specific performance suit.

Allowing the revision petition, the High Court observed that the trial court had misunderstood the ratio of Kasturi. The Supreme Court had itself recognised that necessary parties in a suit for specific performance include the contracting parties, their legal representatives upon death, and subsequent transferees. The Court emphasised that respondent grandchildren, claiming solely through the transfer deed, could not substitute the legal representatives of the deceased vendor because a transferee and a legal representative occupy distinct legal positions. Since the petitioner admittedly represented the estate of the deceased vendor, his exclusion would render the estate inadequately represented and could affect the enforceability of any decree for specific performance.

The Court further held that the expression “legal representative” under Section 2(11) CPC is broad and includes every person representing the estate of the deceased. The existence of rival claims under a Will or competing succession disputes does not deprive such person of the right to be impleaded. Questions relating to the validity of the Will, transfer deed, succession, and title were expressly left open for determination during trial. Accordingly, the High Court set aside the trial court’s order and directed that the petitioner be impleaded as a defendant in his capacity as one of the legal representatives of the deceased vendor.

Decision: The Punjab & Haryana High Court allowed the civil revision petition, set aside the order passed by the Civil Judge and allowed the petitioner’s application under Order I Rule 10 CPC, directing that he be impleaded as a defendant in his capacity as one of the legal representatives of deceased Balbir Singh.