Sister’s Impleadment as Defendant Upheld; Appeal Against Trial Court Order Dismissed

A bench of Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and Prashant Kumar Mishra heard an appeal by R. Krsna Murtii (appearing in person) challenging the Madras High Court’s dismissal of his revision petition against an order of the Subordinate Judge, Perambalur, which allowed the appellant’s sister to be impleaded as a defendant in a suit for declaration and recovery of possession. The principal issue concerned whether the sister could be added as a party to contest title and the appellant’s reliance on a registered will executed by the deceased plaintiff.

The Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the orders of the High Court and the Trial Court allowing impleadment, holding that the question of title and the genuineness of the will required that all necessary parties be heard. The Court observed that its earlier order had only restored the substitution application and had not precluded other persons from contesting the will. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "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. Under these circumstances, the insistence of the Appellant for non impleadment of Respondent no.1 as a defendant is wholly erroneous. We, therefore, uphold the Order of the High Court and the Trial Court and dismiss this appeal." The Court also noted that, in its earlier order, "it would be relevant to point out that if any enquiry was required to be made, the Trial Court could have adopted the course envisaged by Rule 5 of Order XII of the Civil Procedure, 1908 but, in any case, the application made by the appellant could not have been dismissed altogether."

Background The suit (O.S. No. 155 of 2017) was instituted by Pappammal for declaration and recovery of possession against R. R. Jagadesan. The suit was prosecuted by the present appellant as power agent of the then 97‑year‑old plaintiff. Pappammal died on 10.01.2020. The appellant moved I.A. No. 1 of 2020 for substitution as legal representative, relying on a registered will dated 13.06.2016 purportedly bequeathing the entire estate to him. The Trial Court dismissed the substitution application for want of a legal heir certificate and because other legal heirs had not been impleaded; the High Court dismissed a revision, granting liberty to bring other legal heirs on record.

This Court, in Civil Appeal proceedings in July 2022, set aside the Trial Court and High Court orders and restored the substitution application for reconsideration, observing the Trial Court could hold an inquiry under the relevant provisions of the CPC. Pursuant to that direction, the Trial Court allowed I.A. No. 1 of 2020 and substituted the appellant as plaintiff.

Thereafter Respondent No.1 (the deceased’s daughter and the appellant’s sister) filed I.A. No. 6 of 2023 under Order I Rule 10(2) CPC seeking impleadment as a defendant, contending the will was forged. The Trial Court allowed her impleadment by order dated 04.03.2023. The High Court, in CRP No. 1345 of 2023, dismissed the appellant’s revision petition and held that since there was a dispute between the two legal heirs as to title, both must be heard. The Supreme Court declined to go into the merits of the will or title at this interlocutory stage and held that the insistence on non‑impleadment lacked legal basis. The appeal was dismissed and pending applications were disposed of. The Court reiterated that the purpose of trial required hearing all necessary parties; it did not decide the substantive validity of the will and left such determination to the trial court after appropriate evidence.

Case Details: Case No.: 2025 INSC 277 Case Title: PAPPAMMAL (DIED) THROUGH LR R. KRSNA MURTII v. JOTHI & ANR Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): R. Krsna Murtii (in person; legal representative of deceased Pappammal) For the Respondent(s): Jothi (Respondent No.1); R. R. Jagadesan (Respondent No.2)