Case Note & Summary
The original plaintiff, Pappammal, filed a civil suit for declaration and recovery of possession against Respondent No.2. During the suit, Pappammal died. Her son (the appellant) sought substitution as her legal representative based on a registered will dated 13.06.2016. The Trial Court initially dismissed the substitution application, but the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 4832 of 2022 set aside that order and directed reconsideration, observing that the Trial Court could hold an enquiry under Order XXII Rule 5 CPC. The Trial Court then allowed substitution. Subsequently, Respondent No.1, the daughter of the deceased and sister of the appellant, filed I.A. No. 6 of 2023 under Order I Rule 10(2) CPC to implead herself as a defendant. The Trial Court allowed impleadment, and the Madras High Court upheld that order in CRP No. 1345 of 2023. The appellant challenged this before the Supreme Court, arguing that the earlier Supreme Court order only allowed his substitution and that no other person could claim rights. The Supreme Court held that the earlier order did not bar other legal heirs from contesting the will or claiming title. The Court emphasized that the purpose of a trial is to reach the truth, and all necessary parties must be heard. Since there was a dispute between the appellant and respondent No.1 regarding the property and the will, impleadment was necessary. The appeal was dismissed, upholding the orders of the High Court and Trial Court.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Impleadment of Necessary Party - Order I Rule 10(2) CPC - Daughter of deceased plaintiff sought impleadment as defendant to contest will and claim title - Court held that all necessary parties must be heard before decision, and impleadment was rightly allowed - Appeal dismissed (Paras 10-12).
B) Civil Procedure - Substitution of Legal Representative - Order XXII Rule 5 CPC - Earlier Supreme Court order restored substitution application for reconsideration, but did not bar other legal heirs from claiming rights - Appellant's contention that no other person could claim was baseless (Paras 9, 11).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court erred in upholding the Trial Court's order allowing the impleadment of Respondent No.1 (daughter of deceased plaintiff) as a defendant in the suit, despite the appellant having been substituted as plaintiff based on a will.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the orders of the High Court and Trial Court allowing impleadment of Respondent No.1 as defendant No.2 in the suit.
Law Points
- Order I Rule 10(2) CPC
- Order XXII Rule 5 CPC
- Impleadment of necessary party
- Legal representative substitution
- Right to contest will
Case Details
2025 LawText (SC) (2) 275
Civil Appeal No. of 2025 @ SLP (C) No. 4293 of 2024
Sudhanshu Dhulia, Prashant Kumar Mishra
Pappammal (Died) Through LR R. Krsna Murtii
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Civil suit for declaration and recovery of possession; impleadment application by legal heir.
Remedy Sought
Appellant sought to prevent impleadment of Respondent No.1 as defendant; Respondent No.1 sought to be impleaded as defendant to contest the will and claim title.
Filing Reason
Respondent No.1, daughter of deceased plaintiff, filed I.A. No. 6 of 2023 to implead herself as defendant in the suit, alleging the will relied upon by appellant was forged and fabricated.
Previous Decisions
Trial Court dismissed I.A. No. 1 of 2020 for substitution; High Court upheld; Supreme Court set aside and restored for reconsideration; Trial Court then allowed substitution. Trial Court allowed I.A. No. 6 of 2023 for impleadment; High Court upheld in CRP No. 1345 of 2023 dated 30.01.2024.
Issues
Whether the High Court erred in upholding the Trial Court's order allowing impleadment of Respondent No.1 as defendant.
Whether the earlier Supreme Court order dated 21.07.2022 barred other legal heirs from claiming rights or being impleaded.
Submissions/Arguments
Appellant argued that the earlier Supreme Court order only allowed his substitution as plaintiff and that no other person could claim rights or be impleaded.
Respondent No.1 contended that she is a necessary party as a legal heir and that the will is forged; she must be heard before any decision on title.
Ratio Decidendi
The purpose of a trial is to reach the truth, and all necessary parties must be heard before a decision is taken. The earlier Supreme Court order allowing substitution did not bar other legal heirs from claiming rights or being impleaded. Impleadment under Order I Rule 10(2) CPC is proper where there is a dispute between legal heirs regarding title and the validity of a will.
Judgment Excerpts
The entire purpose of a Trial is to reach the truth of the matter and it is absolutely important that all necessary parties must be heard, before a decision is taken by the Court.
This Court in its Order dated 21.07.2022 had merely allowed the substitution of the Appellant as a plaintiff. It did not say that no other person has the right to revise a claim before the Court or to contest the will.
Procedural History
Original suit O.S. No. 155 of 2017 filed by Pappammal. She died on 10.01.2020. Appellant filed I.A. No. 1 of 2020 for substitution, dismissed on 29.03.2021. High Court dismissed revision on 26.05.2021. Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 4832 of 2022 set aside and restored for reconsideration on 21.07.2022. Trial Court allowed substitution. Respondent No.1 filed I.A. No. 6 of 2023 for impleadment on 07.01.2023, allowed on 04.03.2023. High Court dismissed CRP No. 1345 of 2023 on 30.01.2024. Present appeal filed.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Order I Rule 10(2), Order XXII Rule 5
