Holding

All necessary parties, including other legal heirs, must be impleaded to ensure the truth of the matter, and the trial court’s order allowing the daughter’s impleadment is correct.

Summary

The mother, Pappammal, filed a suit for recovery of possession which was being prosecuted by her son as her power of attorney. After the mother died, the son applied to be substituted as the legal representative based on a registered will, and the Supreme Court later allowed his substitution. The daughter, another legal heir, filed an application under Order I Rule 10(2) of the CPC to be impleaded as a defendant, and the trial court allowed it. The son appealed, arguing that the daughter should not be impleaded because the will gave him exclusive rights. The Supreme Court held that the purpose of a trial is to ascertain truth and that all necessary parties, including other heirs, must be heard, rejecting the son’s contention. Consequently, the Court upheld the trial court and High Court orders and dismissed the appeal.

Issues considered

Whether a legal heir can be impleaded as a defendant under Order I Rule 10(2) of the CPC in a suit where another heir has been substituted as plaintiff.
Whether the substitution of the son as plaintiff based on a will precludes the impleadment of the daughter as a necessary party.

Legislation cited

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908s. Order I Rule 10(2), s. Order XII Rule 5, s. Order XXII Rule 51

Headnote

Issue for Consideration Issue arose as regards the order passed by the courts below allowing the application filed by the daughter of the deceased to implead herself as defendant in the suit for recovery of possession filed by her mother. Headnotes† Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Court may strike out or add parties – Impleadment of necessary parties – Suit for recovery of possession by the mother – During pendency, the mother died and the son sought substitution as the legal representative of the deceased plaintiff relying upon a registered

Subjects

Impleadment as defendant in the suitImpleadment of necessary partiesSuit for recovery of possessionSubstitution as legal representativeImpleadment applicationNecessary parties to be heard

Judgment

[2025] 2 S.C.R. 1411 : 2025 INSC 277

Pappammal (Died) Through LR R. Krsna Murtii
v.
Jothi & Anr.
(Civil Appeal No. 3395 of 2025)
27 February 2025
[Sudhanshu Dhulia* and Prashant Kumar Mishra, JJ.]

Issue for Consideration
Issue arose as regards the order passed by the courts below
allowing the application filed by the daughter of the deceased to
implead herself as defendant in the suit for recovery of possession
filed by her mother.

Headnotes†
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Ord. I r.10(2) – Court may strike
out or add parties – Impleadment of necessary parties – Suit
for recovery of possession by the mother – During pendency,
the mother died and the son sought substitution as the
legal representative of the deceased plaintiff relying upon
a registered Will executed by the deceased plaintiff in his
favour with respect to her entire estate – Series of litigation –
Pursuant to order by this Court, the appellant-son substituted
as plaintiff in the suit – Thereafter application filed by the
daughter of the deceased to implead herself as defendant
in the suit – Impleadment application allowed by the courts
below – Correctness:
Held: 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 – Plea of the appellant that
under no circumstance his sister was liable to be impleaded as a
party defendant without any basis – It is based neither on logic nor
on law – This Court in its Order 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 – Thus, the insistence of the appellant for non-impleadment
of the sister as a defendant wholly erroneous – Order of the High
Court and the trial court upheld. [Paras 11, 12]

* Author
1412 [2025] 2 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

List of Acts
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

List of Keywords
Impleadment as defendant in the suit; Impleadment of necessary
parties; Suit for recovery of possession; Substitution as legal
representative; Impleadment application; Necessary parties to
be heard.

Case Arising From
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 3395 of 2025
From the Judgment and Order dated 30.01.2024 of the High Court
of Judicature at Madras in CRP No. 1345 of 2023

Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Respondents:
Proxy counsel, Raghunatha Sethupathy B.
Petitioner-in-person.

Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

Judgment

Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.

1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal is at the instance of the Appellant, who appeared in-
person, 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
[2025] 2 S.C.R. 1413

Pappammal (Died) Through LR R. Krsna Murtii v. Jothi & Anr.

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 re-
consideration 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
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

1 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.
1414 [2025] 2 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

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 allowed the impleadment
application filed by Respondent no. 1 vide order dated 04.03.2023.
7. Appellant challenged this order by way of a Civil Revision Petition
before the Madras High Court. The High Court vide the impugned
order dismissed Appellant’s Revision Petition holding that the Trial
Court had rightly allowed Respondent no. 1 to be impleaded as second
defendant in the suit as there is a dispute between the Appellant and
Respondent no.1 and both legal heirs of the deceased plaintiff, in
respect to the title of the suit schedule property must be heard. The
Appellant’s reliance on the Will allegedly executed by the deceased
plaintiff, which Respondent no.1 alleges to be forged and fabricated.
8. We have heard the Appellant who appears in person before us.
The Appellant claims that the High Court has erred in upholding the
order of the Trial Court in favour of Respondent no. 1 by allowing her
impleadment as Defendant no.2 in the original suit. He would further
argue that this Court in its Order dated 21.07.2022 had only allowed
the present Appellant to be a plaintiff in the suit. This submission of
the Appellant, however, is not correct.
9. This Court in Civil Appeal No. 4833 of 2022 passed an order dated
21.07.2022, which is as follows:
“…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.
That being the position, we set aside the orders impugned
and restore the said application for re-consideration by the
Trial Court in accordance with law.”
10. The Respondent no.1 who has been impleaded as a party defendant
in the suit is the real sister of the Appellant. The subject matter of
[2025] 2 S.C.R. 1415

Pappammal (Died) Through LR R. Krsna Murtii v. Jothi & Anr.

contention between the two is the property held by their mother. It is
indeed true that the Appellant has raised his claim on the property
on the basis of the Will dated 13.06.2016 executed by their mother
four years prior to her death. The mother, when she executed the
will in the year 2016, was about 94 years of age.
11. However, we are not getting into the merits of the case but the
contention of the Appellant that under no circumstance his sister
was liable to be impleaded as a party defendant is without any
basis. 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. The contention of the Appellant is based neither on
logic nor on law.
12. 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.
13. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.

Result of the case: Appeal dismissed.

†
Headnotes prepared by: Nidhi Jain