All Necessary Parties Must Be Heard Before Decision Is Taken: SC Upholds Order Allowing Deceased Plaintiff’s Daughter To Be Impleaded As Defendant In Suit For Possession
The Appeal before the Apex Court was filed at the instance of the Appellant against the judgment of the Madras High Court.
The Supreme Court upheld the orders of the Trial Court and the High Court allowing the deceased plaintiff’s daughter to be impleaded as a party defendant in a civil suit for recovery of possession and observed that all necessary parties must be heard before a decision is taken by the Court.
The Appeal before the Apex Court was filed at the instance of the Appellant, who appeared in person and was aggrieved by the judgment of the Madras High Court.
The Division Bench comprising Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra asserted, “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.”
Factual Background
One Pappammal, the original plaintiff, the mother of the Appellant and first Respondent, filed a civil suit for declaration and recovery of possession against the second Respondent, R. R. Jagadesan. The suit was being prosecuted by the Appellant as the power agent of his mother, who was aged around 97 years at the time. During the pendency of the suit, Pappammal died, and the Appellant moved an application seeking his 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. The Trial Court dismissed the same. The Appellant filed a revision petition which was also dismissed. When the matter was taken to the Apex Court, the matter was remanded to the Trial Court and the Appellant was substituted as plaintiff in the suit.
Thereafter, another application was filed by another legal heir of the deceased Plaintiff, i.e., the first Respondent- daughter of the deceased and sister of the Appellant, to implead herself as defendant in the civil suit. The Trial Court allowed the impleadment application filed by the appellant’s sister under Order I Rule 10 (2) of the CPC. The Appellant challenged this order by way of a Civil Revision Petition before the Madras High Court, but the same was dismissed. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant approached the Apex Court.
Reasoning
The Bench noted that the first Respondent, who has been impleaded as a party defendant in the suit, is the real sister of the Appellant. The subject matter of contention between the two is the property held by their mother.
The Bench found that the Appellant had raised his claim on the property based on the Will executed by their mother four years before her death. The mother, when she executed the will in the year 2016, was about 94 years of age. Discarding the appellant’s contention that under no circumstance was his sister liable to be impleaded as a party defendant, the Apex Court noted that earlier, it 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.
Highlighting the fact that all necessary parties must be heard before a decision is taken by the Court, the Bench held, “Under these circumstances, the insistence of the Appellant for non impleadment of Respondent no.1 as a defendant is wholly erroneous.” Thus, upholding the order of the High Court and the Trial Court, the Bench dismissed the appeal.
Cause Title: Pappammal (Died) Through Lr R. Krsna Murtii v. Jothi & Anr (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 277)
