Action having as object immovable property

“All interested parties should be joined as litigants in the action, otherwise the entire process is invalid”

The claim of a right to an immovable property requires the presence of all necessary parties in order for the court to be able to judge and decide the disputed issues definitively and finally. The failure to include a necessary party deprives him of the right to be informed about the procedure and to have his position heard, rendering the judicial measure ineffective. In such a case, the court is obliged to establish the fact, to note the absence of the necessary party and, without entering into the substance of the dispute, dismisses the action.

Even where a necessary party was included in the action, but it was not served on him and the summons expired, he is considered absent, which affects the procedure even if no remedy is sought against him. The issue is not procedural but fundamental, since it is impossible to order the annulment of the registration of immovable property without first making the affected original or subsequent owner aware of the judicial proceedings.

The cases are numerous, especially between related persons between whom transfers of immovable property are made and subsequently the annulment of the registration is requested, either due to fraud, false representations or without authorization. Since the transfers are interconnected, each is incidental to the other and therefore the persons involved are necessary parties.

Decision of Court of Appeal

The Court of Appeal, in its decision issued in C.A.184/2019, dated 14.01.2025, the plaintiff appealed the first-instance decision that dismissed his lawsuit, because it considered that not all the necessary parties were before him. Thus, all the issues raised could not be decided in a fair and effective manner between all interested parties. The party's failure to add all the necessary parties to the lawsuit was deemed to be fatal to its outcome.

Specifically, the plaintiff's position was that the administrator sold and transferred three disputed pieces of land belonging to the estate of a relative of his to a buyer, who was also defendant, and that the sale and transfer were made in violation of the Administration and Inheritance Law, the rights of the administrator, without the authorization and knowledge of the deceased's heirs and without the permission of the Court. He brought various claims, including an order annulling the transfers of the three properties in the name of the buyer and, alternatively, compensation for damage caused to the estate of the deceased.

During the hearing of the action, it was found that the administrator of the deceased's estate had closed the administration by submitting final accounts. At the stage of final addresses, the administrator and the buyer argued that the action could not succeed in any way since the necessary parties, namely the other heirs of the deceased, were not present before the Court.

First - instance judgment

The Court of First Instance ruled that possible issuance of the order requested for the administrator would essentially pave the way for the annulment of all his acts, resulting in an old administration, within the framework of which the distribution of a large estate took place and which has been closed, to be reopened, with all the consequences that this entails for the heirs or their heirs and without them having been given the opportunity to participate in the process and express their views.

Therefore, the Court considered that the plaintiff's claims and positions, namely that no permission or authorization was obtained from the heirs for the transfers that were made and that the heirs were deceived, remained in limbo.

Conclusion of the Court of Appeal

The Court of Appeal, referring to the authority of Agrotou and other, emphasized that the issue of joining all necessary parties must be raised in a timely manner and immediately after the filling of the Statement of Claim. However, it did not set any inviolable and rigid rule and the Court of First Instance correctly explains that there was no testimony or evidence before it regarding the heirs of the deceased or their heirs.

It concluded that it is within the discretion of the Court to make the necessary modifications as to the parties, in order to enable the effective adjudication of all the issues in dispute, but the choice of the defendants in an action is a right which essentially belongs to the plaintiff. In actions having as their object immovable property, all interested parties must be joined as parties, otherwise the whole proceeding is invalid.

?

?