Holding

The High Court was right that a suit for administration of an estate cannot grant ancillary partition relief without impleading all necessary parties, and the sale deed is valid only to the extent of the seller’s undivided share.

Summary

The plaintiff, Gangubai Raghunath Ayare, sued for administration of her father‑in‑law's estate and sought to declare a sale deed by her brother Vishnu null and void. The trial court dismissed the administration claim for lack of necessary parties but declared the sale deed void and ordered possession of half the property to the plaintiff. On appeal, the High Court held that the sale deed was valid only to the extent of Vishnu's one‑fifth undivided share and set aside the possession decree because the other co‑owners had not been impleaded. The Supreme Court affirmed the High Court, stating that ancillary partition relief cannot be granted when the principal estate‑administration prayer is non‑maintainable and necessary parties are absent, and that a co‑owner may transfer only his share. Consequently, the sale deed stands valid only for Vishnu's share and the plaintiff's possession remains undisturbed until a proper partition is effected. The appeal was dismissed, leaving the status‑quo pending a partition suit.

Issues considered

Whether the High Court was correct in holding that ancillary partition relief cannot be granted when the principal prayer for administration of the estate is rejected and necessary parties are not impleaded.
Whether the sale deed executed by Vishnu in favour of the second defendant is valid only to the extent of his undivided share in the suit property.
Whether the trial court erred in declaring the sale deed void in toto.
Whether the decree of possession against the second defendant could be granted in the absence of suits by the other co‑owners.

Legislation cited

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908s. Order 1 Rule 10, s. Order 1 Rule 9
Transfer of Property Act, 1882s. Section 443

Subjects

Proper partiesNecessary partyAdministration of estatePrincipal prayerAncillary prayerSuit propertyExclusive ownerImpleadmentPossessionSale deed valid to the extent of undivided shareCo‑ownersUndivided sharePartition suitLegal representativesHindu Undivided Family propertyMisjoinder of partiesNon‑joinder of necessary partiesRelinquishment deedLegal heirs

Judgment

[2025] 4 S.C.R. 184 : 2025 INSC 355

Gangubai Raghunath Ayare
v.
Gangaram Sakharam Dhuri (D) Thr. LRs and Ors.
Gangaram Sakharam Dhuri (D) Thr. LRs (R1 to R8)
R1: Anandi Gangaram Dhuri (D) Thr. LRs (R2 to R8)
R2: Sunanda Gangaram Dhuri
R3: Vaishali Vilas Majalkar
R4: Kavita Kashiram Ugave
R5: Vithal Gangaram Dhuri
R6: Mangesh Gangaram Dhuri
R7: Babaji Gangaram Dhuri
R8: Geeta Subhash Baraskar
R9: Laxmibai Vishnu Shelar
Ladubai Mahadev Rane (D) Thr. LRs (R10 to R13)
R10: Hemlata Arjun Tawde
R11: Pratibha Sawant
R12: Supriya Pawar
R13: Sunanda Rane
R14: Shantabai Mahadev Ayare (D)
R15: Pushpa Prabhakar Gudekar (LR of R14)
R16: Tai Shankar Pawar
(Civil Appeal No. 3183 of 2009)
17 March 2025
[Sudhanshu Dhulia and Ahsanuddin Amanullah,* JJ.]

Issue for Consideration
Whether the High Court was right in holding that when the
principal prayer for administration of the estate was rejected
by the Trial Court, any other prayer indirectly seeking partition
could not have been granted, until the proper parties were
impleaded in the suit; whether the sale deed in favour of the
2nd defendant by ‘V’ was valid to the extent of his undivided
share in the suit property.

* Author
[2025] 4 S.C.R. 185

Gangubai Raghunath Ayare v.
Gangaram Sakharam Dhuri (D) Thr. LRs and Ors.

Headnotes†
Suit – Proper parties/necessary party – Non-joinder – ‘V’ (brother
of the plaintiff and the third to fifth defendants) sold ½ portion
of the suit property belonging to their deceased father, to the
2nd defendant – Plaintiff inter alia sought administration of the
deceased’s estate and declaration that the sale deed in favour
of the 2nd defendant was null and void – Trial Court rejected
the prayer for administration of the estate however, declared the
sale void in toto and directed the 2nd defendant to handover
possession of ½ portion of the suit property – Appeal filed by
2nd defendant, allowed by High Court – Challenged:
Held: High Court was right in holding that when the principal prayer
for administration of the estate was rejected by the Trial Court,
that too as non-maintainable, any other prayer indirectly seeking
partition could not have been granted, until the proper parties were
impleaded in the suit – The decree of possession against the 2nd
defendant was also rightly set aside by the High Court, as the said
relief could not have been granted as the third to fifth defendants
had not filed any suit seeking their share in the suit property, whilst
the Plaintiff herself was entitled only to a 1/5th share in the suit
property – On the passing away of ‘V’, during the pendency of the
suit, only his wife was brought on record, whereas his sons and
daughters were not impleaded in the suit by the Plaintiff – Further,
‘V’ had 1/5th undivided share in the suit property, belonging to the
deceased – Thus, the sale deed in favour of the 2nd defendant by
‘V’ is valid only to such extent – Furthermore, the Plaintiff cannot be
disturbed with her possession until the suit property is partitioned
in accordance with law. [Paras 23, 24, 26]

Case Law Cited
Chief Conservator of Forests, Government of Andhra Pradesh v.
Collector [2003] 2 SCR 180 : (2003) 3 SCC 472; Bachhaj Nahar v.
Nilima Mandal [2008] 14 SCR 621 : (2008) 17 SCC 491 – relied on.

List of Acts
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Transfer of Property Act, 1882.

List of Keywords
Proper parties; Necessary party; Administration of estate; Principal
prayer; Ancillary prayer; Suit property; Exclusive owner; Proper
186 [2025] 4 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

parties; Impleadment; Possession; Sale Deed valid to the extent of
undivided share; Co-owners; Undivided share; Partition suit; Legal
representatives; Hindu Undivided Family property; Misjoinder of
parties; Non-joinder of necessary parties; Relinquishment deed;
Legal heirs.

Case Arising From
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 3183 of 2009
From the Judgment and Order dated 20.02.2007 of the High Court
of Bombay in FA No. 116 of 1988

Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Appellant:
Prasenjit Keswani, Debmalya Banerjee, Kartik Bhatnagar, Rohan
Sharma, Anmol, Nicholas Choudhury, Upmanyu Tewari, Mrs. Manik
Karanjawala.
Advs. for the Respondents:
Ajit Bhasme, Sr. Adv., Parth Sarathi, Gyanendra Vikram Singh,
Ms. Soumya Gulati, Raja Kumar Ojha, Sanjay Kumar Visen, Mrs.
Bina Gupta.

Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

Judgment

Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J.

Heard learned counsel and senior counsel appearing for the
respective parties.
2. The present appeal is directed against the Final Judgment and Order
dated 20/21.02.20071 in First Appeal No.116 of 1988 (hereinafter
referred to as the ‘Impugned Judgment’) passed by a learned Single
Judge (as he then was) of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay,
reversing Judgment and Decree dated 18/19.09.1987 passed by the
City Civil Court, Bombay (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Trial Court’)
in Suit No.2060 of 1970.

1 2007 SCC OnLine Bom 144 | (2007) 5 Mah LJ 136 | (2007) 5 Bom CR 306.
[2025] 4 S.C.R. 187

Gangubai Raghunath Ayare v.
Gangaram Sakharam Dhuri (D) Thr. LRs and Ors.

3. At the outset, it is gainful to take note of the position of the contesting
parties before the respective Courts, as under:

Name Trial Court High Court This Court
Gangubai Plaintiff Respondent No.1 Appellant
Raghunath
Ayare
Gangaram Defendant No.2 Appellants No.1-8 Respondents
Sakharam No.1-8
(Died -
Dhuri
Represented by
LRs2)
Vishnu Defendant No.1 Respondent No.2 Respondent
Shelar (Died during No.9
pendency
of the suit -
Represented
by his widow
Laxmibai
Vishnu Shelar)
Ladubai Defendant No.3 Respondent No.3 Respondents
Mahadev No.10-13
[Died -
Rana
Represented by
LRs 3(A) to 3(D)]
Shantabai Defendant No.4 Respondent No.4 Respondents
Mahadev No.14 and 15
[Died -
Ayare
Represented by
LR 4(a)]
Tai Shankar Defendant No.5 Respondent No.5 Respondent
Pawar No.16
1 Defendant No.1 is the real brother of the Plaintiff and
Defendants No.3-5.
2 Defendant No.2 is the purchaser as per the Sale Deed executed
by Defendant No.1.

2 The abbreviation expands to Legal Representatives.
188 [2025] 4 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

FACTUAL SCENARIO:
4. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their
original status before the Trial Court.
5. The dispute in the suit pertains to property bearing C.T.S. No.1048
admeasuring 398.5 square yards altogether, with a building thereon
by the name ‘Sai Niwas’ situated at Bandra, Bombay – 50 (hereinafter
referred to as the ‘suit property’).
6. One Gangaram Thakoji Shelar (hereinafter referred to as the
‘deceased’) was the exclusive owner of the suit property. The
deceased passed away on 13.05.1967. At the time of his death, the
deceased was survived by his widow Sunderbai, his son Vishnu and
four daughters namely, the Plaintiff and the third to fifth defendants,
who were his only legal heirs and representatives.
7. The Plaintiff stated that the deceased was the absolute owner of
the suit property. It is stated that one of the rooms i.e., Room No.1
in the suit property was let out to Raghunath Narayan Ayare, the
Plaintiff’s husband on a monthly rent of Rs.20/-. The Plaintiff, with
her husband and her family members, have been occupying Room
No.1, as tenant(s) thereof, during the lifetime of the deceased. It is
stated that after the death of the deceased, Vishnu, being the only
male member in the family and also the Plaintiff’s and the third to
fifth defendants’ brother, started managing the affairs of and looking
after the suit property.
8. The Plaintiff contends that her brother, Vishnu, had, in the course
of management of the suit property, obtained her as well as her
sisters’ signatures, on some blank papers, including for the purpose
of effecting transfer thereof in the public record in the names of all
the legal heirs.
9. According to the Plaintiff, her husband received Letter dated 10.01.1969
sent to him by the second defendant alleging that the Plaintiff was in
possession of Room No.1 in the suit property as a licensee of Vishnu.
According to the Plaintiff, she learnt, for the first time, from the said
Letter that Vishnu had sold ½ portion of the suit property to the second
defendant based on the Relinquishment Deed dated 11.12.1967,
purportedly executed by the Plaintiff and the third to fifth defendants
in favour of Vishnu. The plaintiff’s husband replied to the said Letter
by pointing out that he was a tenant in respect of Room No.1, and
[2025] 4 S.C.R. 189

Gangubai Raghunath Ayare v.
Gangaram Sakharam Dhuri (D) Thr. LRs and Ors.

not a Licensee. It was contended in the reply that the Plaintiff, being
one of the co-owners of the suit property, the transaction in favour of
the second defendant by Vishnu was not binding on her.
10. The Plaintiff filed Suit No.2060 of 1970 for administration of the estate
of the deceased seeking the following reliefs (sic):
'a) estate and life of the deceased be ascertained and
thereafter the same be administered by and under
the directions of this Hon’ble Court;
b that the share of the plaintiff and the Original
defendant Nos. 1 and 3 to 5 in the state of the said
deceased be ascertained and declared.
c that it be declared that the said sale deed 10th January
1969 executed by Original 1st defendant in favour of
the 2nd defendant is null and void and not binding
on the estate of the said deceased and/or plaintiff’s
share therein and that the 2nd defendant be decreed
and ordered to deliver possession of ½ portion of the
said property comprised in the said sale deed of the
estate of the said deceased.
d That for the purpose aforesaid enquiries be made,
orders be passed and action be taken as may appear
necessary of this Hon’ble Court in that behalf;
e That the original and present 1st defend and their heirs
be decreed and ordered to disclose of the estate of
the said deceased and to account for his dealings
with the said estate.
f That pending the hearing and final disposal of the suit,
Court Receiver, High Court, Bombay, be a pointed
as Receiver of the said property viz. Sai Niwas,
Bandra, Bombay 50, with all powers under order 40
and Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code.
g This pending the hearing and final disposal of the suit
present 1st defendant and 2nd defendant be restrained
by an order of injunction of this Hon’ble Court in any
manner to deal with, dispose of and/or alienating,
transferring, encumbering the said property or any
portion thereof.
190 [2025] 4 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

h That an interim orders in terms of prayers above.
i That costs of and incidental to the suit be provided for.
j That for such further and other reliefs as the nature and
circumstances of the case may require be granted.’
11. The Trial Court framed issues and found as below:

S. Issues Finding
No.
1 Is the suit bad for misjoinder of parties and [Considered
causes of action? unnecessary]
2 Does the Plaintiff prove that the property sold Yes
under the Sale Deed dated 10.01.1969 by the
original 1st defendant to the 2nd defendant form
part of the estate of the deceased Gangaram
Thakoji Shelar?
3 Does the Plaintiff prove that the Sale Deed
dated 10.01.1969 is not binding upon the
Plaintiff?
4 Does the Plaintiff prove that the Sale Deed
dated 10.01.1969 is null and void and illegal?
5 Costs? As per order
6 What Order?

12. The Trial Court held that the suit for administration of property is not
maintainable as the children of Vishnu, who died during the pendency
of the suit, were not brought on record, and for ascertainment and
administration of the estate and determination of the share and
income etc., no issues were raised and no data was available. The
Trial Court held that the Relinquishment Deed dated 11.12.1967
was not proved in accordance with law and the transfer in favour of
the second defendant was null and void and was not binding on the
Plaintiff. The suit was decreed declaring that the Sale Deed dated
10.01.1969 executed by Vishnu in favour of the second defendant
was null and void and directing the second defendant to handover
possession of ½ portion of the suit property, which was subject-
matter of the Sale Deed in question. Further, the Trial Court also
granted liberty to the Plaintiff to claim the other reliefs prayed for in
the suit separately.
[2025] 4 S.C.R. 191

Gangubai Raghunath Ayare v.
Gangaram Sakharam Dhuri (D) Thr. LRs and Ors.

13. The Judgment/Decree of the Trial Court was assailed by the second
defendant before the High Court in a First Appeal. The High Court
allowed the appeal and held that the date on which the sale deed
was executed by Vishnu, he had 1/6th undivided share in the property
of the deceased. Though he had professed to sell ½ of the entire
property, the Sale Deed would not become void or illegal only on that
ground. The High Court held that the purchaser under the Sale Deed
would certainly get what Vishnu was entitled to transfer, namely, his
undivided share in the suit property. It was held that the Sale Deed
dated 10.01.1969 would be valid to the extent of the undivided 1/5th
share of Vishnu and the finding of the Trial Court, that the Sale Deed
was null and void, was set aside.
14. The High Court also opined that the Trial Court had passed a decree
for possession against the second defendant which could not be
done as the third to fifth defendants had not filed any suit nor paid
any Court Fees on their claim regards possession of their share(s).
As the share of the Plaintiff was only to the extent of 1/5th, ½ of the
suit property could not be given to the Plaintiff.
15. The High Court went on to hold that once the Trial Court had found
that the suit for administration of the deceased’s estate was not
maintainable, it could not have granted prayer (c) supra, claimed in
the suit, which was in the nature of a consequential relief.

SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF:
16. Learned counsel for the Plaintiff submitted that Vishnu could not
have sold in favour of the second defendant more than his share
in the suit property. It was contended that, at best, he could have
transferred 1/6th of the share, as on the date of the Sale Deed and
1/5th share after the demise of his mother.
17. It is submitted that as per Section 443 of the Transfer of Property
Act, 1882, if at all the remedy for partition was to be availed, it was

3 ‘44. Transfer by one co-owner.—Where one of two or more co-owners of immoveable property legally
competent in that behalf transfers his share of such property or any interest therein, the transferee
acquires as to such share or interest, and so far as is necessary to give effect to the transfer, the
transferor’s right to joint possession or other common or part enjoyment of the property, and to enforce a
partition of the same, but subject to the conditions and liabilities affecting, at the date of the transfer, the
share or interest so transferred.
Where the transferee of a share of a dwelling-house belonging to an undivided family is not a member of
the family, nothing in this section shall be deemed to entitle him to joint possession or other common or
part enjoyment of the house.’
192 [2025] 4 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

to be by the second defendant to demarcate his separate share, as
acquired from Vishnu, and that the High Court had erred in holding
otherwise. The Plaintiff, having a share in the property, correctly
filed a suit for declaration and possession for recovery of the area in
possession of the second defendant (Respondents No.1-8 herein),
in excess of the entitlement.
18. It was urged that concurrent findings demonstrate that the second
defendant/vendee was not a bonafide purchaser without notice and
he, or his LRs, cannot be granted the benefit of pendency of the
proceedings, which were instituted in the year 1970 i.e., immediately
after the Sale Deed dated 10.01.1969 and, have been contested
since then.
19. Furthermore, it was submitted that initially Vishnu was made party
to the suit and after his death, his widow was impleaded, though
his other legal heirs were not impleaded. However, that would not
in any manner affect the suit since, as on the date when the suit
was instituted, Vishnu had transferred his entire share in the suit
property in favour of the second defendant. Hence, it was urged that
the estate of Vishnu having passed onto the second defendant was
represented in its entirety through the said party, who in any event,
was the main contesting party. Our interference with the Impugned
Judgment was, hence, sought by the Plaintiff.

SUBMISSIONS BY THE SECOND DEFENDANT’S LRS:
20. It was submitted, by learned senior counsel, that although Vishnu,
while executing the Sale Deed had claimed to be the exclusive
owner of the entire suit property, it is well-settled that an undivided
share in a Hindu Undivided Family property can be transferred for
valuable consideration by way of sale.
21. It was advanced that the Plaintiff cannot seek the relief to obtain a
separate share in the property in question, in a suit for administration
of an estate, and such relief can be granted only in a properly-
instituted partition suit.
22. Lastly, it was contended that the second defendant’s LRs were ready
and willing to pay whatever reasonable amount that this Court may
direct, or in the alternative, pay 6% simple interest from 10.01.1969
till date on the original consideration or a lump-sum amount of
Rupees 15,00,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Lakhs), which is a fair offer, if
[2025] 4 S.C.R. 193

Gangubai Raghunath Ayare v.
Gangaram Sakharam Dhuri (D) Thr. LRs and Ors.

one considers that the equities, as on date, are in their favour, as
the Plaintiff has failed before the High Court.

ANALYSIS, REASONING AND CONCLUSION:
23. We are of the firm opinion that the High Court rightly reversed
the finding of the Trial Court which set aside the Sale Deed dated
10.01.1969 in favour of the second defendant by Vishnu in toto,
inasmuch as Vishnu had 1/5th undivided share in the suit property,
belonging to the deceased. The High Court has also rightly set
aside the decree of possession against the second defendant, as
the said relief was incapable of being granted by reason of the fact
that the third to fifth defendants had not filed any suit in this behalf,
whilst the Plaintiff herself was entitled only to a 1/5th share in the suit
property. The suit, as filed by the Plaintiff, sought administration of
the deceased’s estate, with the ancillary prayer being to ascertain
the share of the Plaintiff and the original defendants no.1 and 3 to
5 in the suit property.
24. We accord our imprimatur to the conclusion drawn by the High Court
that when the principal prayer for administration of the estate was
rejected by the Trial Court, that too as non-maintainable, any other
prayer which indirectly seeks partition cannot be granted, until the
proper parties are impleaded in the suit. As noted hereinbefore,
the third to fifth defendants, who are the Plaintiff’s sisters, have not
filed any suit seeking their share in the suit property. Specifically,
on the facts of this case, on the passing away of Vishnu, during the
pendency of the suit, only his wife was brought on record, whereas
his sons and daughters were not impleaded into the suit by the
Plaintiff. In the case of Chief Conservator of Forests, Government
of Andhra Pradesh v Collector, (2003) 3 SCC 472, the Court
explained, through Hon. Quadri, J.:
‘12. It needs to be noted here that a legal entity — a
natural person or an artificial person — can sue or be
sued in his/its own name in a court of law or a tribunal.
It is not merely a procedural formality but is essentially a
matter of substance and considerable significance. That
is why there are special provisions in the Constitution
and the Code of Civil Procedure as to how the Central
Government or the Government of a State may sue
or be sued. So also there are special provisions in
194 [2025] 4 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

regard to other juristic persons specifying as to how
they can sue or be sued. In giving description of a party
it will be useful to remember the distinction between
misdescription or misnomer of a party and misjoinder or
non-joinder of a party suing or being sued. In the case of
misdescription of a party, the court may at any stage of
the suit/proceedings permit correction of the cause-title
so that the party before the court is correctly described;
however, a misdescription of a party will not be fatal
to the maintainability of the suit/proceedings. Though
Rule 9 of Order 1 CPC4 mandates that no suit shall be
defeated by reason of the misjoinder or non-joinder of
parties, it is important to notice that the proviso thereto
clarifies that nothing in that Rule shall apply to non-joinder
of a necessary party. Therefore, care must be taken to
ensure that the necessary party is before the court, be
it a plaintiff or a defendant, otherwise, the suit or the
proceedings will have to fail. Rule 10 of Order 1 CPC
provides remedy when a suit is filed in the name of the
wrong plaintiff and empowers the court to strike out any
party improperly joined or to implead a necessary party
at any stage of the proceedings.’
(emphasis supplied)

25. In the decision rendered in Bachhaj Nahar v Nilima Mandal, (2008)
17 SCC 491, the Court, speaking through Hon’ble Raveendran, J.,
held:
‘23.5 It is fundamental that in a civil suit, relief to be
granted can be only with reference to the prayers made
in the pleadings. That apart, in civil suits, grant of relief is
circumscribed by various factors like court fee, limitation,
parties to the suits, as also grounds barring relief, like res
judicata, estoppel, acquiescence, non-joinder of causes of

4 ‘9. Misjoinder and non-joinder.—No suit shall be defeated by reason of the misjoinder or non-joinder
of parties, and the Court may in every suit deal with the matter in controversy so far as regards the rights
and interests of the parties actually before it:
Provided that nothing in this rule shall apply to non-joinder of a necessary party.’
5 Para 23 of Bachhaj Nahar (supra) was corrected vide Official Corrigendum No.F.3/Ed.B.J./89/2009
dated 17.07.2009.
[2025] 4 S.C.R. 195

Gangubai Raghunath Ayare v.
Gangaram Sakharam Dhuri (D) Thr. LRs and Ors.

action or parties, etc., which require pleading and proof.
Therefore, it would be hazardous to hold that in a civil
suit whatever be the relief that is prayed, the court can
on examination of facts grant any relief as it thinks fit. In
a suit for recovery of rupees one lakh, the court cannot
grant a decree for rupees ten lakhs. In a suit for recovery
possession of property ‘A’, court cannot grant possession
of property ‘B’. In a suit praying for permanent injunction,
court cannot grant a relief of declaration or possession. The
jurisdiction to grant relief in a civil suit necessarily depends
on the pleadings, prayer, court fee paid, evidence let in, etc.’
(emphasis supplied)

26. In view of the reasons stated above, this Court directs that the Plaintiff
cannot be disturbed with her possession until the suit property is
partitioned in accordance with law. The second defendant shall only
have 1/5th share in the suit property, which fell to Vishnu on the demise
of the deceased, as the Sale Deed dated 10.01.1969 in favour of
the second defendant by Vishnu is held valid only to such extent.
27. Considering the passage of time of half a century and the current
scenario where parties are represented through their legal heirs,
the Trial Court concerned shall positively endeavour to decide the
partition suit, if so filed, within three months from the date of filing
thereof, in terms of the liberty granted hereinabove.
28. This Court, while granting leave on 01.05.2009, ordered that ‘Until
further orders, it is directed that subject matter of dispute shall not
be alienated by any of the parties.’ As the said Order has continued
for over a decade and a half, in the interest of justice, there shall
be status quo in the said terms, till the time the suit property is
partitioned as per law.
29. The Civil Appeal is disposed of, with the aforesaid observations and
directions. Costs made easy.
30. I.A. No.14513/2022 is an application to ‘Condone the delay of 916 days
& Setting aside abatement in filing the Application to bring on Record
the LRs of Deceased Respondent No. 1’6 (sic). I.A. No.72967/2021

6 Party description is as per this appeal.
196 [2025] 4 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

is an application to ‘Allow the present application to bring on record
the Legal Representatives of the deceased Respondent No.1 who
are already on record in the present appeal as Respondents No.2-
8 as mentioned in paragraph 3 of the present application’7 (sic).
Considering that the LRs to be brought on record are already arrayed
as parties to this appeal, both the I.A.s are allowed, thereby condoning
the delay, setting aside the abatement, and bringing the said LRs on
record on behalf of the first respondent herein, who passed away on
28.09.2018, as per the Death Certificate dated 01.02.2021 issued
by the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai.

Result of the case: Appeal disposed of.

†
Headnotes prepared by: Divya Pandey

7 Ibid.