Supreme Court: compromise decree without necessary party is a nullity

The case concerns a dispute over a compromise decree regarding property partition, where the appellants (legal heirs of a daughter) argued that the decree was invalid because they were not included as necessary parties despite having a legal share under the Hindu Succession Act.

Who it concerns: Appellants: Geeta Bai & Ors.; Respondents: K. Arjun Singh & Ors.; Bench: Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta.

What the court decided

• The Court held that the compromise decree obtained without impleading the necessary party (Late Smt. Ballo Bai or her legal heirs) is a nullity.
• The matter is remitted to the High Court to reconsider the applications afresh.
• The interim order granted by the Supreme Court on 27th May, 2026, remains in force for two weeks from the date of this order.
• Parties are directed to appear before the High Court on 5th October, 2026.
• Third parties who filed impleadment applications before the Supreme Court are given liberty to approach the High Court and appear on 5th October, 2026.
• The appeals are allowed.

Also in the document

• The Court explicitly stated that the High Court's view that the appellants were strangers to the lis and barred by Order XXIII Rule 3A of the CPC was erroneous.
• The Court clarified that the extension of the interim order shall not influence the High Court in taking an independent decision on the request for stay.
• The order is dated September 28, 2026.