Supreme Court Ends Long Legal Battle in Sulthan Said Ibrahim v. Prakasan : Judgement by Justices Pardiwala and Justices Mahadevan JJ

In the case of Sulthan Said Ibrahim v. Prakasan & Ors. (Civil Appeal No. 7108 of 2025), the Supreme Court of India addressed a number of complex issues, including those pertaining to civil procedure, succession in accordance with Mohammedan law, tenancy rights in accordance with Kerala Rent Control laws, and the finality of rulings.

An important investigation into the ways in which procedural laws, in notably the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), interact with statutory tenancy rights and property disputes, this case is well worth looking into.

As a result of this, the Supreme Court was compelled to reaffirm the long-standing principles of res judicata and equitable remedy that were established by the Specific remedy Act of 1963. Additionally, it sheds light on the ways in which judicial delay and procedural manipulation can impede the implementation of court orders.

Details on the situation

The dispute stems from a contract that was made in 1996 for the purchase of a retail property in Palakkad, which is located in the state of Kerala. Prakasan, the plaintiff, and Jameela Beevi, the original defendant, reached an agreement to sell the property to Prakasan for a sum of ₹6,000,000.

A lawsuit for particular performance was filed by the plaintiff, who claimed that he was prepared and willing to pay the remaining sum of ₹1,50,000; nevertheless, the seller refused to execute the sale deed, which resulted in the plaintiff filing the lawsuit.

In 1998, the case was first decreed ex parte; however, it ultimately underwent a number of legal challenges and restorations. The plaintiff’s claim to particular performance was eventually confirmed by the trial court in the year 2003. This decree was subsequently upheld by both the High Court and the Supreme Court, which means that it is now considered to be final.

The execution of the sale document, on the other hand, remained hindered for more than twenty years. This was primarily owing to the persistent resistance from the legal heirs of the dead defendant, in particular the appellant, Sulthan Said Ibrahim, who asserted that he was a tenant rather than a legal successor.

For More Updates & Regular Notes Join Our Whats App Group (https://chat.whatsapp.com/DkucckgAEJbCtXwXr2yIt0) and Telegram Group ( https://t.me/legalmaestroeducators )

Concerns Relating to the Law

A number of important legal questions were necessary to be investigated by the court:

The question at hand is whether or whether the appellant has the ability to request that the case be dismissed at a later stage, arguing that he was wrongfully impleaded as a legitimate successor in accordance with Mohammedan law.

It is unclear if the execution of a specific performance directive could be hampered by his tenancy rights, which he claims to have received from his father from his father.

The question is whether the decree implicitly gave possession of the property, despite the fact that there was no clear directive from the court.

The Observations of the Court Regarding Implementation and Res Judicata

The person who filed the appeal said that according to Mohammedan law, the grandson, who is the offspring of a son who has passed away, does not inherit from the grandmother. As a result, he argued that his enlistment as a legal heir of the initial defendant was not valid and that he ought to be removed from the case in accordance with Order I Rule 10(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code.

This assertion was dismissed by the Supreme Court, which pointed out that the appellant had not raised any objections to his imprisonment at the appropriate time, nor had he filed an appeal against the order of imprisonment.

With reference to Order XXII Rule 4 and Rule 5 of the CPC, the court highlighted that the question of who is a legal representative must be settled at the time of the implantation of the legal representative. In light of the fact that the appellant had taken part in subsequent procedures without raising any objections, the doctrine of constructive res judicata ruled that his delayed challenge was inadmissible.

In order to emphasize that res judicata applies across different phases of the same action, the Court cited authoritative precedents such as Bhanu Kumar Jain v. Archana Kumar and Satyadhyan Ghosal v. Deorajin Debi. This allowed the Court to sustain the finality of verdicts.

Rejection of Claims Regarding Tenancy

Tenancy rights were asserted by the appellant on the basis of his late father’s occupation of the property since 1969, which was supported by municipal licenses by the appellant. According to his argument, he was not able to be evicted without being given due process in accordance with the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965, which is Section 11 of the Act.

Despite this, the court determined that these allegations were without merit. It was mentioned that:

Tenancy was not mentioned at any point in the sale agreement that was signed in 1996.

No tenancy claims were brought up by the appellant, who was a witness to the sale agreement, during either the first proceedings or the appeal proceedings.

Given that the municipal license that was submitted was obtained in 2011, which is years after the order, and while the execution was still pending, it is possible that it was an afterthought.

It was determined by the court that the appellant was just attempting to prolong the implementation of the sentence via the use of frivolous litigation. The claim of tenancy was hypothetical and did not have any evidence that could be considered reliable.

Relief from Possession That Is Implied

In response to the argument that the decree did not expressly command ownership of the property, the court determined that the decree was restricted to the execution of the sale document.

The court affirmed, with reference to other decisions such as Babu Lal v. Hazari Lal Kishori Lal and Rohit Kochhar v. Vipul Infrastructure Developers Ltd., that ownership is implicitly transferred through particular performance where the seller continues to be in exclusive possession of the property at the time of the decree.

Therefore, the plaintiff’s entitlement was not affected by the fact that there was no clear direction from the court regarding possession.

Final Decisions and Concluding Remarks

A decision was made by the Supreme Court to dismiss the appeal with costs of ₹25,000. The court also instructed the executing court to ensure that the plaintiff is given unoccupied and tranquil possession of the property within a period of two months, with the assistance of the police if it is required.

The need of preventing litigants from misusing judicial processes in order to continue occupying property in defiance of a lawful ruling was emphasized once again by the court, as was the necessity of ensuring that legal proceedings are concluded for all parties involved.

The ideas of res judicata, finality of verdicts, and equitable application of decrees are all strengthened by this judgment, which holds a significant place in the legal system. This sends a strong message against strategic litigation that is intended at delaying justice, protecting the rights of decree-holders, and ensuring that the judicial process is as effective as possible.

About the Author

Legal Maestros

Editor

Author's website Author's posts