A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE

This Supreme Court judgment, delivered by Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. on 27 February 2025, addresses the narrow procedural question whether a sibling of a substituted plaintiff can be impleaded as a defendant in a pending suit for declaration and recovery of possession after the original plaintiff’s death and after substitution of a legal representative under an alleged registered will.

The petitioner (son) relied on this Court’s earlier order (21.07.2022) restoring his substitution-application and his subsequent substitution as plaintiff; he contended that that substitution precluded his sister (another legal heir) from being impleaded as defendant. The trial court allowed the sister’s I.A. under Order I r.10(2) CPC; the High Court upheld that order; the son appealed. The Supreme Court held that substitution as plaintiff did not oust other legal heirs of the right to be heard or to contest the genuineness of the will; the object of a trial is to elicit truth by hearing all necessary parties.

The Court rejected the appellant’s submission that impleadment was impermissible as neither logical nor legal. The orders of the trial court and the High Court allowing impleadment were upheld and the appeal dismissed. This decision reiterates that questions of representation, title and genuineness of testamentary instruments may require impleading rival claimants as parties so that the Court can conduct a fair enquiry under the CPC provisions invoked.

Keywords: Impleadment, Substitution, Will, Order I r.10(2) CPC, Order XXII r.51 CPC, necessary parties.

B) CASE DETAILS 

C) INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGEMENT

The litigation began as a landlord/possession suit filed by Pappammal (aged ~97) for declaration and recovery of possession (O.S. No. 155 of 2017). The son (now appellant) prosecuted the suit as his mother’s power agent. After her death (10.01.2020) the son moved to be substituted as the legal representative, relying on a registered will dated 13.06.2016 allegedly disposing of the entire estate in his favour. The trial court initially dismissed his substitution application because other legal heirs had not been brought on record and the will’s genuineness could not be decided at that interlocutory stage.

The High Court dismissed the revision and granted liberty to add other heirs. This Court (by order dated 21.07.2022 in Civil Appeal No. 4832 of 2022 / SLP(C) No. 13332 of 2021) set aside those orders and restored the substitution application for re-consideration, observing that the trial court could, if necessary, adopt the inquiry course under Order XII r.5 CPC or Order XXII procedures. Pursuant to this Court’s direction, the trial court allowed the substitution and the appellant was placed on record as plaintiff.

Subsequently the deceased’s daughter (respondent no.1) filed I.A. No. 6 of 2023 under Order I r.10(2) CPC seeking impleadment as a defendant on the ground that she contests the will as forged/fabricated and claims rights in the suit property. The trial court allowed impleadment; the High Court dismissed the civil revision; the appellant pursued this appeal in person. The Supreme Court framed the narrow point whether substitution of the son as plaintiff precluded impleadment and held it did not; every necessary party must be heard to arrive at truth.

D) FACTS OF THE CASE

Pappammal instituted O.S. No. 155/2017 for declaration and possession; the appellant son prosecuted it as his mother’s power agent. Pappammal died on 10.01.2020. The son produced a registered will dated 13.06.2016 executed by the deceased, alleging entire estate in his favour, and filed I.A. No. 1 of 2020 for substitution as legal representative.

The trial court dismissed substitution because the son had not produced a legal-heir certificate and other heirs were not impleaded; the court held genuineness of the will could not be decided without other heirs being before the court. The High Court dismissed revision and permitted the son to bring other heirs on record. The son approached this Court by way of Civil Appeal/SLP; this Court (21.07.2022) set aside the lower orders and restored the substitution application to the trial court for reconsideration, noting the trial court’s power to conduct necessary enquiries under Order XXII r.51 and Order XII r.5.

Acting on that, the trial court allowed substitution and the appellant was recorded as plaintiff. Thereafter the deceased’s daughter (respondent no.1) filed I.A. No. 6/2023 under Order I r.10(2) CPC to be impleaded as defendant, alleging dispute over title and contending that the will is forged. Trial court allowed impleadment on 04.03.2023.

The appellant contested impleadment before the High Court by way of civil revision; the High Court upheld impleadment holding both legal heirs must be heard in respect of title and genuineness of the will. The son then appealed to the Supreme Court.

E) LEGAL ISSUES RAISED

i. Whether substitution of a legal representative as plaintiff bars other legal heirs from being impleaded as defendants in the same suit?
ii. Whether the trial court and High Court were right in allowing impleadment of the deceased plaintiff’s daughter under Order I r.10(2) CPC when substitution in favour of another heir had already been permitted?
iii. Whether a claim based on a registered will can be adjudicated without impleading rival legal heirs and testing genuineness of the will through appropriate procedure?

F) PETITIONER / APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS

i. The appellant (in-person) argued that this Court’s order dated 21.07.2022 restored and permitted his substitution as plaintiff; that substitution entailed the substantive right to prosecute the suit and should preclude impleadment of his sister as defendant.
ii. He submitted that once substituted, no other person could be permitted to revise or revisit the claim in a manner that detracts from the position conferred by this Court’s earlier direction.
iii. He contended that the sister’s impleadment was unnecessary and prejudicial, and that there was no legal basis to permit her to be made a party-defendant after substitution had been effected.

G) RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

i. The respondent no.1 (daughter) applied under Order I r.10(2) CPC to be impleaded as defendant on the ground that she is a legal heir with competing claim and she alleges the registered will produced by the appellant to be forged and fabricated.
ii. She asserted that in disputes touching title and testamentary disposition, all interested legal heirs must be given an opportunity to be heard so that genuine issues of title and forgery can be properly adjudicated.
iii. She relied on the trial court’s and High Court’s power to add necessary parties to secure full and final adjudication of rights in the suit property.

H) JUDGEMENT

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the orders of the trial court and High Court allowing impleadment. The Court emphasized that the earlier order of this Court dated 21.07.2022 had restored the substitution application and directed reconsideration; it did not confer any immunity on the suit or preclude other legal heirs from contesting the claim.

The Court observed the central object of trial procedure is to arrive at truth and that is achievable only if all necessary parties are before the court. The appellant’s submission that impleadment of the sister was impermissible once he was substituted was held to be neither logical nor supported by law.

The Court refused to enter into the merits of the will’s genuineness; rather it stressed procedural propriety: when a rival heir alleges forgery or contests title, impleadment is an appropriate device to bring such persons before the court so the trial court can proceed with the necessary enquiries under CPC (including Order XXII r.51 and Order XII r.5 where relevant). Given these considerations the impugned orders were sustained and appeal dismissed. Pending applications disposed.

a. RATIO DECIDENDI

The operative ratio is that substitution of a legal representative as plaintiff does not bar necessary impleadment of other legal heirs who seek to contest the claim or the testamentary document on which substitution is founded. The Court anchored this on the principles of fair adjudication and the trial court’s wide powers under the CPC to strike out or add parties (Order I r.10(2) CPC).

Where genuineness or title is contested, the trial court must have the full array of parties to enable an effective enquiry an interlocutory determination of substitution cannot preclude a later, legitimate application under Order I r.10(2) to implead necessary parties. The earlier order of restoration of substitution was procedural it restored the appellant’s right to have his application considered; it did not decide the ultimate question of title or the will’s validity and therefore could not operate as res judicata or a bar to impleadment.

Consequently the High Court and trial court correctly exercised their discretion to allow impleadment so that the truth about title and testamentary validity may be ascertained in a full trial.

b. OBITER DICTA

The Court, while refraining from deciding substantive issues, reinforced a few ancillary observations:

(i) enquiry procedures under Order XII r.5 and Order XXII r.51 are available and appropriate where questions of representation and genuineness arise on substitution;

(ii) mere production of a registered will at interlocutory stage does not automatically negate the need to implead other heirs when they allege forgery such allegations deserve opportunity to be tested;

(iii) procedural directions by appellate or superior courts restoring applications should not be construed as final pronouncements ousting the trial court’s duty to frame issues, add parties, and conduct enquiries necessary to do complete justice.

These observations underline the Court’s commitment to ensuring trials are conducted on a full evidentiary basis with necessary parties before the forum.

c. GUIDELINES 

• Order I r.10(2) CPC should be liberally used to add necessary parties where their presence is required for complete adjudication.

• Restoration or allowance of substitution under interlocutory orders does not preclude rival heirs from seeking impleadment to contest title or documents relied upon for substitution.

• Allegations of forgery of testamentary instruments raised by legal heirs should be tested by proper procedural enquiry — trial courts may invoke Order XII r.5 and Order XXII procedures for recording evidence on representation.

• Courts must ensure that the object of trial — to reach the truth — is not defeated by procedural technicalities; necessary parties must be heard prior to final adjudication.

I) CONCLUSION & COMMENTS

The judgment affirms a core procedural principle: substitution or interlocutory favour to one heir does not silence or exclude other heirs’ procedural rights to be heard. Practically, the decision reminds practitioners that reliance on a registered will to secure substitution is not a substitute for adducing evidence on title and for bringing on record necessary parties who contest the will.

Trial courts retain broad discretion to implead parties under Order I r.10(2) CPC and to undertake inquisitorial enquiry under relevant provisions where representation and testamentary authenticity are in dispute.

For litigants, the lesson is two-fold:

(i) a registered will accelerates a substitution claim but does not foreclose subsequent legitimate contests;

(ii) rival heirs must proactively seek impleadment and the trial court must balance expediency with the duty to frame a roster of parties sufficient for complete adjudication always with the aim of eliciting truth rather than sheltering procedural advantage.

The judgment thus reinforces procedural fairness in succession-linked property litigation and cautions against reading restorative orders as substantive immunities.

J) REFERENCES

a. Important Cases Referred

i. Pappammal (Died) Through LR R. Krsna Murtii v. Jothi & Anr., Civil App. No. 3395 of 2025, [2025] 2 S.C.R. 1411 (Supreme Court of India).

b. Important Statutes Referred

i. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Order I r.10(2); Order XII r.5; Order XXII r.51.