Summary
The appellant, substituted as plaintiff on the strength of a will, objected to his sister (another legal heir of the deceased plaintiff) being impleaded as a defendant. The Court held that its earlier order permitting his substitution did not bar anyone else from contesting the will, that all necessary parties must be heard to reach the truth, and dismissed the appeal.
Issues
- Whether the trial court rightly allowed a daughter of the deceased plaintiff to be impleaded as a defendant under Order I Rule 10(2) CPC in a suit being prosecuted by her brother as the plaintiff substituted under a will.
- Whether this Court's earlier order restoring the appellant's substitution application precluded the impleadment of other legal heirs.
Provisions considered
- Order I Rule 10(2), Code of Civil Procedure, 1908Respondent No. 1 applied under this rule to be added as a defendant. The Court upheld the trial court's and High Court's orders allowing the application, holding that the dispute between the two heirs over title to the suit property (the respondent alleging the will to be forged) had to be heard and that all necessary parties must be before the court. (¶¶ 6, 7, 11, 12)
- Order XXII Rule 5, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908Referred to as the provision under which the trial court could have held an enquiry into who is the legal representative of the deceased plaintiff, as noted in this Court's earlier order of 21.07.2022 which restored the appellant's substitution application for reconsideration. (¶¶ 4, 9)
Held
- An order permitting the substitution of one claimant as plaintiff in place of a deceased plaintiff does not amount to a holding that no other person may raise a claim before the court or contest the will on which the substitution was founded; a contention to the contrary is based neither on logic nor on law. (¶ 11)
- The purpose of a trial is to reach the truth, and all necessary parties must be heard before the court decides; where another heir disputes the substituted plaintiff's title under a will alleged to be forged and fabricated, her impleadment as a defendant is proper and the insistence that she not be impleaded is wholly erroneous. (¶¶ 7, 12)
- The Court expressly did not enter into the merits of the rival claims to the property. (¶ 11)
Result
Appeal dismissed; orders of the trial court and the High Court allowing the impleadment of respondent No. 1 as a defendant upheld. Pending applications disposed of.