A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE
Pappammal (Died) Through LR R. Krsna Murtii v. Jothi & Anr., [2025] 2 S.C.R. 1411 : 2025 INSC 277, concerns the narrow but important procedural question whether a legal heir may be impleaded as a defendant in a pending suit after substitution of another heir as plaintiff on the basis of a will. The original suit for declaration and recovery of possession was filed by Pappammal and prosecuted by her son as power agent; on her death the son produced a registered Will dated 13.06.2016 and sought substitution. This Court restored the substitution application and the Trial Court later allowed substitution.
Thereafter the deceased’s daughter sought impleadment as defendant under Order I Rule 10(2) CPC, contending the Will was forged. Trial Court allowed impleadment and the High Court upheld that order; the son challenged before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, emphasizing that substitution as plaintiff did not preclude other legal heirs from being made parties when their rights are in contest and that the object of trial procedure is to elicit truth by hearing all necessary parties. The bench relied on principles permitting courts to add or strike out parties and to try issues under relevant CPC provisions.
The decision underscores the primacy of inclusion of necessary parties and the limited scope of substitution orders: substitution does not immunize a party from future contest or prevent impleadment of co-heirs who assert adverse claims.
Keywords: Impleadment, Substitution, Order I Rule 10(2) CPC, Will, Necessary parties.
B) CASE DETAILS
i) Judgement Cause Title
Pappammal (Died) Through LR R. Krsna Murtii v. Jothi & Anr.
ii) Case Number
Civil Appeal No. 3395 of 2025
iii) Judgement Date
27 February 2025
iv) Court
Supreme Court of India
v) Quorum
Sudhanshu Dhulia and Prashant Kumar Mishra, JJ.
vi) Author
Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.
vii) Citation
[2025] 2 S.C.R. 1411 : 2025 INSC 277.
viii) Legal Provisions Involved
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Order I Rule 10(2); Order XII Rule 5; Order XXII (substitution/enquiry provisions referenced).
ix) Judgments overruled by the Case (if any)
None recorded in the judgment.
x) Related Law Subjects
Civil Procedure; Succession (Wills); Title and Possession disputes; Civil Evidence (limited to procedural enquiry into genuineness of Will).
C) INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGEMENT
Pappammal, a nonagenarian, instituted a suit for declaration and recovery of possession and was represented by her son as power agent. During litigation she died (10.01.2020). The son produced a registered Will dated 13.06.2016 claiming the entire estate in his favour and applied for substitution as legal representative. The Trial Court initially dismissed substitution for want of participation by other legal heirs and absence of a legal-heir certificate, invoking the need to implead other heirs to test the Will’s genuineness.
The High Court agreed and dismissed revision; this Court in Civil Appeal No. 4832 of 2022 set aside those orders on 21.07.2022 and remanded, observing that the substitution application should not have been dismissed outright and courts could proceed under the relevant CPC rule to enquire. Following restoration, the Trial Court allowed substitution; subsequently the deceased’s daughter filed an application under Order I Rule 10(2) CPC to be impleaded as defendant claiming the Will to be forged. The Trial Court allowed impleadment and the High Court upheld it.
The son appealed, contending that the earlier substitution order precluded impleadment of his sister and that she could not be a defendant in the title suit. The Supreme Court examined the narrow procedural issue of whether allowing substitution as plaintiff precluded other legal heirs from being impleaded as defendants where those heirs aver adverse rights. The court framed the dispute as one about hearing all necessary parties so that truth on title and genuineness of the Will may be ascertained.
The Court declined to adjudicate the Will’s validity on merits but stressed that substitution does not foreclose contestation and that the object of civil procedure is inclusive adjudication by making necessary parties subject to impleadment.
D) FACTS OF THE CASE
Pappammal filed O.S. No. 155 of 2017 for declaration and recovery of possession; she was represented by her son as power agent. The plaintiff died on 10.01.2020. The son produced a registered Will (13.06.2016) in his favour and moved I.A. No.1 of 2020 for substitution as legal representative. The Trial Court dismissed substitution because the son had not filed a legal-heir certificate and other legal heirs had not been impleaded; the High Court dismissed revision and granted liberty to make other heirs parties.
The son moved to this Court and this Court set aside the dismissal and remanded for reconsideration, noting the Trial Court could enquire under the CPC and that dismissal was inappropriate. Consequent upon that order the Trial Court allowed the substitution and the son was brought on record as plaintiff. Thereafter the deceased’s daughter (the appellant’s sister) filed I.A. No.6 of 2023 on 07.01.2023 under Order I Rule 10(2) CPC seeking impleadment as defendant, alleging the Will was forged and asserting her interest in the suit property.
The Trial Court allowed impleadment on 04.03.2023; the High Court dismissed the son’s civil revision and held that where co-heirs dispute title and genuineness of a Will both must be heard. The son appealed to this Court asserting that the earlier substitution order precluded impleadment. The Supreme Court heard the son in person and confined itself to the question of procedural propriety of impleadment; it observed that substitution simply allowed the son to continue the suit as plaintiff but did not immunize the claim from being contested by other heirs or prevent their being impleaded as parties.
E) LEGAL ISSUES RAISED
i. Whether substitution of a legal representative based on a registered Will precludes other legal heirs from being impleaded as defendants in the original suit?
ii. Whether a Trial Court or High Court was justified in allowing impleadment of a legal heir under Order I Rule 10(2) CPC after substitution had been ordered?
iii. What is the proper scope of enquiry by a court when genuineness of a Will is alleged during substitution applications?
F) PETITIONER / APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS
i. The appellant (son) contended that this Court’s earlier order allowing substitution effectively endorsed his position as plaintiff and therefore his sister could not be impleaded as defendant in the same suit.
ii. He argued that allowing impleadment would prejudice his title claim under the registered Will dated 13.06.2016 and was inconsistent with the relief granted by the Supreme Court earlier.
iii. He submitted that in the absence of a prima facie basis to treat the sister’s application as necessary, impleadment ought not to have been permitted.
G) RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS
i. The respondent (daughter) maintained she was a legal heir entitled to contest the Will and that her impleadment as defendant was necessary to adjudicate competing claims to the property.
ii. She alleged forgery/fabrication of the registered Will thereby raising triable issues which required her presence before the Court.
iii. She relied upon the procedural right under Order I Rule 10(2) CPC to be made a party where her rights could be affected by the judgment.
H) RELATED LEGAL PROVISIONS
i. Order I Rule 10(2), Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 power to add or strike out parties when necessary for determining questions involved.
ii. Order XII Rule 5 / Order XXII (enquiry/substitution provisions) as referenced by this Court procedure for determining whether a person is legal representative and conducting necessary enquiries when substitution is sought.
I) JUDGEMENT
The Supreme Court confined itself to the narrow procedural question and dismissed the appeal. The Court reiterated that its earlier order dated 21.07.2022 had restored the substitution application and directed reconsideration, but had not insulated the substituted plaintiff from being challenged. The Court observed that substitution merely enabled the appellant to be substituted as plaintiff; it did not foreclose other legal heirs from asserting rights or seeking impleadment.
Relying on the general object of CPC mechanisms to facilitate adjudication of real controversies, the Court held that where the genuineness of a Will is in dispute and other heirs claim title, those heirs are necessary parties who must be heard before a final decision on title is taken. The Trial Court’s and High Court’s orders allowing impleadment under Order I Rule 10(2) CPC were therefore legally sustainable.
The Court refused to go into merits of the Will’s validity that determination belongs to trial on evidence and upheld the inclusion of the daughter as defendant so that all competing contentions on title may be adjudicated in one forum. The appeal was dismissed and pending applications disposed of.
a. RATIO DECIDENDI
The operative ratio is that substitution as plaintiff does not bar courts from impleading other legal heirs as parties where their rights are in dispute and where the genuineness of title documents (such as a Will) is contested. The Court emphasised that the primary purpose of civil procedure is to elicit truth and decide disputes with all necessary parties before it, and the powers under Order I Rule 10(2) CPC allow inclusion of such parties.
The prior restoration of the substitution application did not constitute an adjudication on title or an estoppel against impleadment; substitution was procedural and limited to recognizing the appellant as the representative plaintiff for prosecuting the suit. Therefore, the addition of the sister as defendant was within judicial competence to ensure complete and effective adjudication.
b. OBITER DICTA
The Court made observations emphasizing judicial economy and fairness: that a court must not decide determinative questions without hearing all persons whose rights may be affected; that allegations of forgery or fabrication of a registered Will dated 13.06.2016 raise triable issues which cannot be resolved at the substitution stage; and that procedural devices such as Order XII Rule 5 or the enquiry under relevant substitution rules are tools to be used to ascertain representative status but are not substitutes for full trial on contested issues. These remarks, while ancillary, underscore the Court’s preference for inclusive adjudication and careful use of substitution/enquiry mechanisms without pre-judging substantive title disputes.
c. GUIDELINES
i. When substitution of a deceased plaintiff is sought on the basis of a Will, courts should treat substitution as a procedural step and not as final determination of title.
ii. If other legal heirs assert adverse rights or allege forgery, they may be impleaded under Order I Rule 10(2) CPC as necessary parties.
iii. Courts may conduct preliminary enquiries under the rules governing substitution (Order XXII / Order XII Rule 5 as applicable) but must avoid deciding contentious issues of genuineness of documents without full trial.
iv. Judicial officers should ensure that all persons whose rights may be affected are given an opportunity to be heard to prevent multiplicity of litigation and to secure adjudication on the merits.
v. Inclusion of necessary parties promotes truth-finding and judicial economy; discretion to add/strike parties should be exercised to facilitate complete determination of disputes.
J) CONCLUSION & COMMENTS
The decision in Pappammal affirms a foundational principle of civil procedure: process serves substantive justice only when all necessary parties are before the Court. The ruling preserves the distinction between procedural substitution and substantive adjudication of title. Practically, the judgment cautions parties relying on testamentary documents that substitution gained for prosecuting a suit is not a procedural shield against contestation by co-heirs.
For trial courts the message is to use substitution and preliminary enquiry powers prudently: allow substitution where appropriate but ensure that co-heirs with plausible adverse claims are impleaded so that issues especially allegations of forgery of a registered Will dated 13.06.2016 can be resolved by evidence in a single proceeding. The judgment promotes judicial economy by avoiding piecemeal adjudication and upholds fairness by insisting on hearing all parties whose legal interests are directly implicated.
Law students and practitioners should note the Court’s refusal to decide substantive questions at interlocutory stages and its reliance on Order I Rule 10(2) CPC as the correct procedural vehicle to bring necessary parties before the Court. This judgment will guide future disputes where substitution and contested testamentary claims intersect, reinforcing that substitution is facilitative, not determinative, in succession-linked civil litigation.
K) REFERENCES
a. Important Cases Referred
i. Pappammal (Died) Through LR R. Krsna Murtii v. Jothi & Anr., [2025] 2 S.C.R. 1411 : 2025 INSC 277.
b. Important Statutes Referred
i. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — Order I Rule 10(2); Order XII Rule 5; Order XXII (substitution provisions).
