IMPORTANT POINT
Legal heirs can be substituted in a suit after the death of the original plaintiff without altering the nature of the suit, provided the original cause of action remains unchanged.

JUDGMENT :

(Somasekhar Sundaresan, J.) :

1. This Appeal is directed against an order dated 13th March, 2023 (“Impugned Order”), by which a Learned Single Judge of this Court allowed the replacement of the deceased original Plaintiff in Suit No. 1011 of 2014, with certain individuals who purport to claim through a Will, as the legal heirs of the deceased original Plaintiff.

2. The Impugned Order is one of the many strands in a web of litigation among the parties. It would be fruitful to examine the background to the litigation among the parties.

Background and Context:

3. The Appellant, Mr. Mujibur Rehman Haji Israr Alam Siddiqui is the son of Late Mr. Haji Israr Alam Mohd Nazir Siddiqui (“Late Mr. Alam”). The Late Mr. Alam’s widow is Ms. Noorjahan Begum Haji Israr Alam Siddiqui (“Mother”). Nine siblings who are the offspring of the Late Mr. Alam, the Mother, and eight tenants of various properties, are parties to various suit proceedings in this Court.

4. According to the Appellant, an oral partition and division pursuant to a Family Settlement took place, initially on 11th July, 2000, and thereafter on 18th June, 2004 (collectively, “Family Settlement”). Various family members are said to have acted upon such Family Settlement, even creating third- party rights over the properties they were entitled to under the Family Settlement. The Appellant has alleged that the Late Mr. Alam had illegally and unilaterally revoked the Family Settlement by a revocation notice dated 5th March, 2014. According to him, the Late Mr. Alam also reneged on the Family Settlement by alienating various properties.

5. These allegations were countered by the Late Mr. Alam. Other parties who are said to have initially supported the Appellant are said to have switched sides subsequently, opposing the Appellant and seeking the Late Mr. Alam’s forgiveness. The upshot of these developments is the institution and pendency of three Suits in this Court, namely:-

a) Suit No. 865 of 2014 (“Suit 865”), filed by the Appellant challenging the revocation of the Family Settlement by the Late Mr. Alam, and the allegedly violative alienation of properties covered by the Family Settlement;

b) Suit No. 1011 of 2014 (“Suit 1011”), filed by the Late Mr. Alam, seeking declaratory reliefs relating to ownership of suit properties and appointment of a Court Receiver in respect of properties in the possession of the Appellant; and

c) Suit (Lodging) No. 27343 of 2021 (“Suit 27343”), filed by Dr. Nazia Shad Siddiqui (“Dr. Nazia Shad”), the daughter-in-law of the Late Mr. Alam (sister-in-law of the Appellant), based on the assertion that she is an executor of a purported Will dated 11th November, 2019 that had been made by the Late Mr. Alam.

6. Both, the Late Mr. Alam and Dr. Nazia Shad have alleged that the Appellant has created bogus and fraudulent Family Settlements. In Suit 1011 (the suit instituted by the Late Mr. Alam), a Learned Single Judge of this Court had passed an order dated 24th July, 2014, directing the parties to maintain status quo in respect of the properties listed in Exhibit C of the Plaint in Suit 865 (“Status Quo Order”). The Appellant had claimed that his father had committed perjury by filing contradictory assertions on oath in the aforesaid litigation. The Late Mr. Alam had taken out Chamber Summons No. 217 of 2017 in Suit 1011 seeking to bring on record the fact that third party interests exist on the properties. The Late Mr. Alam had gifted properties to the Appellant’s siblings. The Late Mr. Alam had also formed a trust and transferred rights to certain properties to the trustees. The Appellant filed Contempt Petition No. 72 of 2017 against Late Mr. Alam for the alleged violation of the Status Quo Order.

7. On 20th October, 2020, Dr. Nazia Shad wrote to the Appellant, calling upon him to implead her in Suit 865, in place and stead of the Late Mr. Alam, who had passed away on 13th May, 2020. The request was on the premise that she was the beneficiary of the assets f