Read Time: 11 minutes

Synopsis

The Supreme Court recently said 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.

A bench of Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and Prashant Kumar Mishra rejected a plea by a man challenging the inclusion of his own sister as a respondent in a civil suit. The appellant claimed to be the sole heir of the entire estate based on a will executed by their mother at the age of 94. However, the bench found his contention "wholly erroneous" and "without any basis either on law or in logic."

The appellant challenged the Madras High Court's order dated January 30, 2024. The civil revision petition was filed before the high court against the order passed by the subordinate judge, Perambalur, which allowed his sister to be a party in the suit.

According to the case facts, Pappammal, the original plaintiff and the mother of the appellant and respondent no. 1, had filed a civil suit for declaration and recovery of possession against respondent no. 2, R. R. Jagadesan.

The suit was being prosecuted by the appellant as the power agent of his mother, Pappammal, who was around 94 years old at the time. During the pendency of the suit, Pappammal passed away on January 10, 2020.

Thereafter, the appellant moved an application seeking his substitution as the legal representative of the deceased plaintiff, relying on a registered will dated June 13, 2016, executed by his mother in his favor, bequeathing her entire estate to him.

On March 29, 2021, the trial court dismissed the application on the grounds that, even though the appellant had produced a registered will in his favor executed by the deceased plaintiff, no legal heir certificate of the deceased plaintiff had been filed. Further, the court noted that there were other legal heirs and that the genuineness of the will could not be decided at that stage without impleading them.

The appellant filed a revision petition against the dismissal order, which was also rejected by the high court on May 26, 2021. The high court upheld the trial court’s order but granted the appellant liberty to bring the other legal heirs on record.

The appellant then moved the apex court, which, on July 21, 2022, set aside the orders and judgments of the high court and trial court and restored the application for reconsideration by the trial court in accordance with the law.

The court had the. observed that the appellant’s substitution application ought not to have been dismissed merely because he had not made other legal heirs a party. It had stated that, for this purpose, the trial court had the power to proceed and hold an inquiry under Order XXII Rule 5 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908.

Pursuant to the top court’s order, the trial court allowed the 2020 application, and the appellant was substituted as the plaintiff in the suit.

Subsequently, an application was filed by another legal heir of the deceased plaintiff, i.e., respondent no. 1, the daughter of the deceased and sister of the appellant, seeking to implead herself as a defendant in the civil suit.

The proceedings arising out of that application became the subject matter of the appeal before the apex court.

The appellant claimed that the high court had erred in upholding the trial court’s order in favor of respondent no. 1 by allowing her impleadment as defendant no. 2 in the original suit.

He further argued that the apex court, in its order of July 21, 2022, had only allowed him to be a plaintiff in the suit.

"This submission of the appellant, however, is not correct," the bench said.

The bench pointed out that respondent no. 1, who had been impleaded as a party defendant in the suit, was the real sister of the appellant.

The subject matter of contention between the two was the property held by their mother, the court noted.

"It is indeed true that the appellant has raised his claim on the property on the basis of the Will dated June 13, 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," the bench pointed out.

Without getting into the merits of the case, the court said the appellant’s contention that under no circumstances was his sister liable to be impleaded as a party defendant was "without any basis."

The bench pointed out that the top court, in its previous order, had merely allowed the substitution of the appellant as a plaintiff.

The court said the order did not state that no other person had the right to revive a claim before the court or contest the will.

"The contention of the appellant is based neither on logic nor on law," the bench said.

"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 on the non-impleadment of respondent no. 1 as a defendant is wholly erroneous," the bench said.

The court, therefore, upheld the orders of the high court and the trial court and dismissed the appeal.

Case Title: Pappammal (Dead) Through LR R Krsna Murth Vs Jothi & Anr