Re-litigation of the same issue was barred under the principle of constructive res judicata (Bhanu Kumar Jain v. Archana Kumar, 2005): The Court held that once impleaded as a legal heir under Order XXII Rule 4 CPC without objection, the appellant cannot later seek deletion under Order I Rule 10 CPC:The Supreme Court of India, in Sulthan Said Ibrahim vs. Prakasan & Ors. [Civil Appeal No. 7108 of 2025], delivered a landmark verdict on May 23, 2025

---

Introduction:
The Supreme Court of India, in Sulthan Said Ibrahim vs. Prakasan & Ors. [Civil Appeal No. 7108 of 2025], delivered a landmark verdict on May 23, 2025, ending a decades-long litigation over a small commercial property in Palakkad, Kerala. The ruling underscores the importance of finality in judicial decisions and denounces procedural abuse aimed at frustrating lawful decrees.

---

Key Facts of the Case:

• In 1996, the original plaintiff, Prakasan, filed a suit for specific performance against Jameela Beevi, based on a sale agreement for a shop property.

• Despite ex parte and then final decree in the plaintiff's favor in 2003, possession was never handed over due to repeated objections and procedural delays by the legal heirs of the original defendant.

• One such heir, the appellant Sulthan Said Ibrahim (grandson of Jameela Beevi), filed for deletion of his name from party array in 2012, claiming he was not a legal heir and was instead a tenant.

---

Supreme Court's Observations:

1. Res Judicata Applies Even Within Same Proceedings:

   • The Court held that once impleaded as a legal heir under Order XXII Rule 4 CPC without objection, the appellant cannot later seek deletion under Order I Rule 10 CPC.

   • Re-litigation of the same issue was barred under the principle of constructive res judicata (Bhanu Kumar Jain v. Archana Kumar, 2005).

2. Delay and Abuse of Process:

   • The Court condemned the appellant’s conduct as part of a broader strategy to delay execution and deny the plaintiff fruits of the decree.

   • Appellant’s objections were seen as frivolous and made years after the opportunity to object had passed.

3. Claim of Tenancy Rejected:

   • The Court found no credible evidence to support the appellant’s tenancy claim. The tenancy, even if it existed, was not shown to survive or be recognized in the 1996 agreement of sale.

   • A 2011 municipality license was deemed insufficient and suspicious, having been obtained during litigation.

4. Possession Implied in Specific Performance:

   • The Court reiterated that where the defendant was in possession at the time of decree, delivery of possession is implicit in a specific performance decree (Rohit Kochhar v. Vipul Infrastructure, 2024).

---

Laws Discussed:

• Order I Rule 10 CPC: Powers of Court to strike out or add parties.

• Order XXII Rule 4 & 5 CPC: Procedure on death of defendant; determination of legal representatives.

• Section 11 CPC: Res judicata.

• Section 28, Specific Relief Act, 1963: Rescission of contract.

• Section 11, Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965: Protection of tenants.

---

Final Verdict:

• Appeal dismissed with Rs. 25,000 cost on the appellant.

• Executing Court directed to ensure peaceful possession to the plaintiff within two months, with police aid if necessary.

---

Conclusion:

This judgment reinforces the need for litigants to act diligently and not misuse procedural tools to stall justice. The Supreme Court's firm stance ensures that lawful decree-holders are not rendered helpless in the face of endless litigation tactics. The ruling is also a reminder that failure to raise timely objections can have lasting legal consequences.