PAPPAMMAL (DIED) THROUGH LR R. KRSNA MURTII versus JOTHI & ANR.

Citation: [2025] 2 S.C.R. 1411 · Decided: 27-02-2025 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SUDHANSHU DHULIA · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

[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 Tria

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.