KISHORILAL (D) THR. LRS & ORS. versus GOPAL & ORS.

Citation: [2026] 2 S.C.R. 144 · Decided: 12-01-2026 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: MANOJ MISRA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 9 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2026] 2 S.C.R. 144 : 2026 INSC 48
Kishorilal (D) Thr. Lrs & Ors.  
v. 
Gopal & Ors. 
(Civil Appeal No. 172 of 2026)
12 January 2026
[Manoj Misra* and Ujjal Bhuyan, JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Whether F.A. No. 213 of 2000 abated on non-substitution of LRs 
of ‘M’ i.e., appellant 1(2), who was one of the LRs of deceased-
judgment debtor ‘K’; whether the order of the High Court 
dtd.03.05.2013, holding that appellants No. 2 and 3 along with 
other heirs of ‘K’ sufficiently represented the interest of ‘K’ in the 
appeal, would, by the principle of res judicata, bar a declaration 
that the appeal had abated; whether by allowing impleadment of 
the heirs and legal representatives of ‘M’ as proforma respondents 
in F. A. No. 213 of 2000, vide order dtd.03.05.2013, the High Court, 
in effect set aside abatement, if any; whether, in the peculiar facts 
of the case, the High Court ought to have condoned the delay and 
set aside the abatement, if any, of F.A. No.213 of 2000.
Headnotes†
Non-substitution of some of the heirs/ legal representatives 
of a deceased party – Abatement of proceedings – When 
not – Estate of a deceased party if sufficiently represented 
by legal heirs on record, proceedings would not abate if 
some of the heirs are left out – First respondent filed suit 
for specific performance of agreement to purchase the suit 
scheduled property against appellant no.1-‘K’ (since deceased), 
now represented through his LRs – During pendency of the 
suit, appellants No.2 and 3 (appellants in connected appeal) 
purchased the suit property from ‘K’ – Suit decreed– Appeal 
(F. A. No.213 of 2000) filed by ‘K’ and appellants No.2 and 3 – 
‘K’ died during pendency of the appeal, his four legal heirs 
were substituted as appellants No.1(1), 1(2)-‘M’, 1(3) and 
1(4) – One of the LRs, ‘M’-Appellant No.1(2) died – On his 
death, the remaining appellants filed application for deletion 
of ‘M’ from the array of parties – On deletion of ‘M’ from the 
* Author
[2026] 2 S.C.R. 
145
Kishorilal (D) Thr. Lrs & Ors. v. Gopal & Ors.
array of parties in the appeal, and non-substitution of his 
LRs, application was filed by the first respondent to dismiss 
the appeal as having abated – Dismissed by High Court – 
Application was filed to implead heirs of ‘M’, allowed vide 
order dtd.03.05.2013 – Eventually, High Court dismissed the 
appeal as having abated holding that on deletion of ‘M’s name 
from the array of parties, the appeal abated – Challenge to:
Held: View of the High Court that the appeal had abated is 
erroneous – Where the estate of a deceased party is sufficiently 
represented by his legal heirs on record, proceedings would not 
abate if some of the heirs are left out – On the death of appellant 
No.1-‘K’, all his LRs were substituted as appellants No.1(1), 1(2)-‘M’, 
1(3) and 1(4), though, later, one of them, appellant 1(2)-‘M’, died – 
Since three out of four legal heirs of ‘K’ were already on record, 
besides the appellants No.2 and 3 in whom title in the property 
resided, the estate of ‘K’-the vendor was sufficiently represented 
and, therefore, the appeal did not abate on non-substitution of 
LRs of ‘M’ as was rightly held earlier by the High Court vide order 
dtd.03.05.2013 – Impugned order(s) passed by the High Court, 
set aside – First appeals restored. [Paras 39, 40, 47]
Non-substitution of heirs/ legal representatives of a deceased 
party – Suit/proceeding, if abates – Factors to be examined:
Held: Before declaring a suit or proceeding to have abated on 
ground of non-substitution of the heirs/ legal representatives of a 
deceased party, the Court must examine whether the interest of 
the deceased party qua the subject matter of the proceeding is 
sufficiently represented by other parties already on record – If the 
interest of the deceased party is sufficiently represented by other 
parties already on record, and the decree/order eventually passed 
in the suit or proceeding would not be rendered non-executable 
for absence of that party, the suit or proceeding would not abate – 
In a suit for specific performance of an agreement for sale of an 
immovable property, vendor is a necessary party notwithstanding 
he has transferred his interest in the property to a third party – 
Thus, a suit or an appeal emanating from such a suit would abate 
if, upon death of the vendor, his legal heirs/ representatives are 
not substituted – Further, though a transfer lis pendens is not 
always void, such transferee’s title is subs

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.