Supreme Court Upholds Impleadment of Legal Heir in Property Dispute: Pappammal (Died) Through LR R. Krsna Murti vs. Jothi & Anr (2025)

Date of the Judgment: February 27, 2025
Citation: 2025 INSC 277
Judges: Sudhanshu Dhulia, J., Prashant Kumar Mishra, J.

In a recent judgment, the Supreme Court addressed the issue of impleading a legal heir as a defendant in a property dispute case. The central question was whether the High Court erred in allowing the daughter of a deceased plaintiff to be impleaded as a defendant, given a dispute over the title of the property. Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and Prashant Kumar Mishra, delivered the judgment, dismissing the appeal and upholding the orders of the High Court and Trial Court.

Case Background

The case originated from a civil suit (O.S. No. 155 of 2017) filed by Pappammal against R.R. Jagadesan, seeking declaration and recovery of possession. The suit was prosecuted by Pappammal’s son, R. Krsna Murti, as her power agent. Pappammal passed away on January 10, 2020, during the pendency of the suit. Subsequently, R. Krsna Murti sought to be substituted as the legal representative based on a registered will dated June 13, 2016, which bequeathed Pappammal’s entire estate to him.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The Trial Court initially dismissed R. Krsna Murti’s application for substitution, citing the absence of a legal heir certificate and the existence of other legal heirs. The High Court upheld this decision but granted R. Krsna Murti the liberty to bring the other legal heirs on record. Subsequently, the Supreme Court, in Civil Appeal No. 4832 of 2022, set aside the orders of the lower courts, directing the Trial Court to reconsider the application in accordance with law, emphasizing the powers of the Trial Court under Order XXII Rule 5 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC). Following this, the Trial Court allowed R. Krsna Murti to be substituted as the plaintiff.

Later, Jothi, another legal heir and daughter of the deceased, filed I.A. No. 6 of 2023 to implead herself as a defendant in the suit. The Trial Court allowed this application, a decision challenged by R. Krsna Murti before the Madras High Court. The High Court dismissed the revision petition, affirming the Trial Court’s decision, noting the dispute between the legal heirs regarding the title of the property.

Legal Framework

The Supreme Court considered the following legal provision:

• Order XXII Rule 5 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC): Deals with the determination of questions regarding legal representation. The provision states:
  “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…”
  This rule empowers the court to determine the legal representatives of a deceased party.
• Order I Rule 10 (2) of the CPC: This provision allows the court to add any person as a party whose presence before the Court may be necessary in order to enable the Court effectively and completely to adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit.

Arguments

Appellant’s (R. Krsna Murti) Arguments:

• The High Court erred in upholding the Trial Court’s order allowing Jothi to be impleaded as Defendant No. 2.
• The Supreme Court’s order dated July 21, 2022, only allowed the appellant to be a plaintiff in the suit.

Respondent’s (Jothi) Argument:

• As a legal heir and daughter of the deceased plaintiff, she has a right to be heard in the property dispute.
• The will presented by the appellant is allegedly forged and fabricated, necessitating her presence in the suit to protect her interests.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

1. Whether the High Court erred in upholding the order of the Trial Court in favor of Respondent No. 1 by allowing her impleadment as Defendant No. 2 in the original suit.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court: “The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues”

Authorities

The Court considered Order XXII Rule 5 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, which empowers the court to determine the legal representatives of a deceased party.

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• Order XXII Rule 5 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908: The Court relied on this provision to emphasize the Trial Court’s power to determine the legal representatives and ensure a fair adjudication.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Court emphasized the importance of including all necessary parties to ascertain the truth and ensure a fair trial. The insistence of the appellant on preventing the respondent’s impleadment was deemed illogical and legally unsound. The Court underscored that its previous order was limited to allowing the appellant’s substitution as a plaintiff and did not restrict other parties from contesting the will or asserting their claims.

Fact:Law Ratio

Logical Reasoning

Issue: Whether the High Court erred in upholding the Trial Court’s decision to allow the impleadment of Respondent No. 1 as Defendant No. 2.

Flowchart:

The Court considered the arguments for and against the impleadment, emphasizing the importance of a comprehensive trial to ascertain the truth. The Court rejected the appellant’s argument that its previous order precluded the impleadment, clarifying that the order was limited to the appellant’s substitution as a plaintiff. The Court emphasized that “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.” The Court also noted that “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 Court concluded that “the insistence of the Appellant for non impleadment of Respondent no.1 as a defendant is wholly erroneous.”

Key Takeaways

• All necessary parties must be heard in a trial to ascertain the truth and ensure a fair decision.
• Orders allowing substitution of a party do not preclude other parties from contesting claims or wills.
• Courts have the power to implead parties whose presence is necessary for effective adjudication.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of the case is that all necessary parties must be included in a suit to ensure a fair trial and to ascertain the truth. The judgment clarifies that previous orders allowing substitution do not restrict other parties from contesting claims or wills.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the orders of the High Court and Trial Court, thereby affirming the impleadment of the respondent as a defendant in the property dispute. The Court reiterated the importance of hearing all necessary parties to ensure a fair and comprehensive trial.