1. Suit for declaration and recovery of possession — Death of plaintiff — Substitution of legal representative via Will — Application for impleadment of another legal heir as defendant. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 )
Back
Next 
2025 Supreme(SC) 410
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
SUDHANSHU DHULIA, PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, JJ.
Pappammal (Died) Through Lr R. Krsna Murtii – Appellants
Versus
Jothi & Anr – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. of 2025 @ Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 4293 of 2024
Decided on : 27-02-2025
Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s):Petitioner-in-person
For the Respondent(s): Mr. S. Prabu Ramasubramanian, Adv. Mr. Raghunatha Sethupathy B, AOR Mr. Bharathimohan M., Adv. Mr. Manoj Kumar A., Adv. Mr. Santhosh K., Adv. Mr. Vinayaga Vignesh I., Adv. Ms. V. Swetha, Adv.
For the Petitioner(s):Petitioner-in-person
For the Respondent(s): Mr. S. Prabu Ramasubramanian, Adv. Mr. Raghunatha Sethupathy B, AOR Mr. Bharathimohan M., Adv. Mr. Manoj Kumar A., Adv. Mr. Santhosh K., Adv. Mr. Vinayaga Vignesh I., Adv. Ms. V. Swetha, Adv.
The court held that substituting a legal representative as a plaintiff does not preclude other legal heirs from being impleaded as defendants under Order I Rule 10 of the CPC, ensuring all necessary parties are heard to resolve disputes over property title or the validity of a will.
Headnote:
Civil P.C. 1908 -- O. 1 R. 10(2) and O. 22 R. 5 -- necessary party -- civil suit for declaration and recovery of possession -- death of plaintiff -- son of plaintiff substituted as plaintiff on ground of Will regarding her entire estate -- sister of appellant sought to be impleaded as defendant in civil suit alleging Will to be forged and fabricated -- entire purpose of trial only to reach truth of matter -- all necessary parties required to be heard before decision of Court -- insistence of appellant on not impleading respondent as defendant erroneous. [Paras 10 to 12]
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Appellant contends that a prior order allowing his substitution as plaintiff precludes the impleadment of another legal heir as a defendant. (Para 8 )
3. Substitution of a plaintiff does not preclude other legal heirs from contesting the title of the property or the validity of a Will. (Para 10 , 11 )
4. To ensure the truth is reached during a trial, all necessary parties must be heard, regardless of prior substitution orders. (Para 12 )
5. Appeal dismissed; orders of the High Court and Trial Court allowing the impleadment of the respondent as a defendant are upheld. (Para 12 , 13 )
6. Does the substitution of a legal representative as a plaintiff preclude other legal heirs from being impleaded as defendants?
No. The court held that allowing one person to be substituted as a plaintiff does not prevent other persons from raising a claim before the court or contesting a will. (Para 11 )
7. What is the primary objective of a trial regarding the impleadment of parties?
The purpose of a trial is to reach the truth of the matter, which requires that all necessary parties be heard before a decision is taken by the court. (Para 12 )
8. How is the question of a person's status as a legal representative determined under the CPC?
Under Order XXII Rule 5 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, the court is empowered to determine whether any person is or is not the legal representative of a deceased party. (Para 4 )
JUDGMENT :
SUDHANSHU DHULIA, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal is at the instance of the Appellant, who appeared inperson, and is aggrieved by the judgment and order of the High Court of Madras in CRP No. 1345 of 2023 dated 30.01.2024. The Civil Revision Petition before the High Court was filed against the order dated 04.03.2023 in I.A. No. 6 of 2023 in O.S. No. 155 of 2017 passed by the Subordinate Judge, Perambalur.
3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that one Pappammal, the original plaintiff and the mother of Appellant and Respondent No. 1 herein, filed O.S. No. 155 of 2017, a civil suit for declaration and recovery of possession against Respondent no. 2 herein, R. R. Jagadesan. The suit was being prosecuted by the Appellant as the power agent of his mother Pappammal, aged around 97 years at the time. During the pendency of the suit, Pappammal died on 10.01.2020. Thereafter, the Appellant moved an application being I.A. No. 1 of 2020, seeking his substitution as the legal representative of the deceased plaintiff, relying upon a registered will dated 13.06.2016 executed by the deceased plaintiff in his favour with respect to her entire estate.
4. On 29.03.2021, the Trial Court dismissed I.A. No. 1 of 2020 on the grounds that even though the Appellant has produced a registered will in his favour executed by the deceased plaintiff, no legal heir certificate of the deceased plaintiff has been filed. Further, there are other legal heirs of the deceased Plaintiff and the genuineness of the will produced by the Appellant cannot be decided at this stage without impleading the other legal heirs of the deceased plaintiff. Appellant filed a revision petition against the above dismissal order of the Trial Court which was also dismissed vide order dated 26.05.2021 whereby the High Court upheld the Trial Court’s order and granted liberty to the Appellant to bring on record the other legal heirs of the deceased Plaintiff. Thereafter, the Appellant moved this Court by filing Civil Appeal No. 4832 of 2022 [SLP (C) NO. 13332 of 2021] wherein this Court by its order dated 21.07.2022 set aside the orders and judgements of the High Court and Trial Court and restored the application for reconsideration by the Trial Court in accordance with law. This Court had observed that the Appellant’s substitution application ought not to have been dismissed for the mere reason that he had not made other legal heirs a party and therefore, for this purpose the Trial Court had powers to proceed and hold an enquiry under Order XXII Rule 51[5. Determination of question as to legal representative.—Where a question arises as to whether any person is or is not the legal representative of a deceased plaintiff or a deceased defendant, such question shall be determined by the Court:
Provided that where such question arises before an Appellate Court, that Court may, before determining the question, direct any subordinate Court to try the question and to return the records together with evidence, if any, recorded at such trial, its findings and reasons therefor, and the Appellate Court may take the same into consideration in determining the question.] of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as ‘CPC’). Pursuant to this Court’s order, the Trial Court allowed I.A. No. 1 of 2020, and the Appellant was substituted as plaintiff in the suit.
5. Later an I.A. No. 6 of 2023 was filed by another legal heir of deceased Plaintiff, i.e., Respondent no. 1 daughter of the deceased and sister of the Appellant herein, to implead herself as defendant in the civil suit. The proceedings arising out of this application are the subject matter of the Appeal before us.
6. Respondent no. 1 is admittedly the daughter of the deceased plaintiff. As mentioned above, she filed I.A. No. 6 of 2023 in O.S. No. 155 of 2017 on 07.01.2023 under Order I Rule 10 (2) of the CPC for impleading herself as a defendant Appellant herein opposed the impleadment application. Trial Court allo
