R. KRSNA MURTII VERSUS R. R. JAGADESAN
R. KRSNA MURTII VERSUS R. R. JAGADESAN
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4832 OF 2022
[Arising out of SLP (C) No. 13332 OF 2021]
R. KRSNA MURTII APPELLANT(S)
R. R. JAGADESAN RESPONDENT(S)
O R D E R
DINESH MAHESHWARI, J.
We have heard the appellant appearing in person and the
learned counsel appearing for the sole respondent.
Shorn of unnecessary details, the relevant aspects of the
present matter are that the appellant herein had been the power
of attorney holder of his mother, who had filed the subject suit
for declaration and perpetual injunction and alternatively, for
declaration and recovery of possession against the respondent.
The suit was being prosecuted by the appellant as the power agent
of the plaintiff. The said plaintiff, mother of the appellant,
expired on 10.01.2020. Thereafter, the appellant moved an
application, being I.A. No. 1 of 2020, seeking his substitution
as legal representative of the deceased plaintiff with the
assertion that the plaintiff, his mother, had executed a Will
dated 13.06.2016 in his favour with respect to all her estate and
the said Will was registered with the Sub-Registrar Office,
This application was considered by the learned Sub-ordinate
Judge, Perambalur in the order dated 29.03.2021, wherein the
submissions on behalf of the defendant-respondent were taken into
consideration that the appellant was not the only legal heir of
the deceased plaintiff; and that the deceased had another son and
one daughter and without impleading them, the appellant was not
entitled to proceed further. The learned Trial Judge was of the
view that from the Will itself, existence of other son and
daughter of the deceased plaintiff was evident; and that the
execution and attestation were not the questions to be decided at
the given stage.
Having regard to the factum of existence of other legal
heirs of the deceased plaintiff, the learned Trial Judge
straightway came to the conclusion that the application I.A. No.
1 of 2020 moved by the appellant for substitution was required to
be dismissed and ordered accordingly.
The appellant preferred a revision petition before the High
Court against the order aforesaid. The High Court proceeded to
dismiss the said revision petition on the consideration that the
petitioner i.e., the present appellant, ought to have taken steps
for impleading the other legal heirs of the late plaintiff either
as co-plaintiffs or as defendants to enforce his right over the
property in question.
The order aforesaid has been questioned by the appellant
before us, inter alia, with the submission that the Trial Court
and High Court were not justified in rejecting the prayer made by
the appellant for his own substitution as the legal
representative of deceased plaintiff and in any case, the
application could not have been rejected on the grounds taken and
on the reasons assigned by the learned Trial Judge and approved
by the High Court.
Learned counsel for the respondent has attempted his best
to support the orders impugned, again and essentially with the
submissions that at the given stage and in view of the factual
aspects involved, other legal heirs of the deceased plaintiff
could not have been left out from being impleaded as her legal
representatives in the subject suit.
Having examined the matter in its totality and having given
thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions, we are unable
to approve the orders impugned.
Leaving aside any other aspect of the matter, it is but
apparent that the appellant is admittedly the son of the deceased
plaintiff. Thus, his entitlement, whether by way of testamentary
succession or non-testamentary succession, as being the legal
heir of the deceased plaintiff cannot be denied. That being the
position, the application made by him for substituting himself as
the legal representative of the deceased plaintiff could not have
been declined by the Trial Court.
In this regard too, it would be relevant to point out that
if any inquiry was required to be made, the Trial Court could
have adopted the course envisaged by Rule 5 of Order XXII of the
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 but, in any case, the application
made by the appellant could not have been dismissed altogether.
That being the position, we set aside the orders impugned
and restore the said application for re-consideration by the
Trial Court in accordance with law.
The appeal is allowed in the above terms. No order as to
JULY 21, 2022.
ITEM NO.6 COURT NO.13 SECTION XII
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 13332/2021
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 26-05-2021
in CRPPD No. 1158/2021 passed by the High Court of Judicature at
R. KRSNA MURTII Petitioner(s)
R. R. JAGADESAN Respondent(s)
IA No. 107513/2021 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.
IA No. 107511/2021 - PERMISSION TO APPEAR AND ARGUE IN PERSON)
Date : 21-07-2022 These matters were called on for hearing today.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIRUDDHA BOSE
For Petitioner(s) Petitioner-in-person
For Respondent(s) Mr. G. Balaji, AOR
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
IA No. 107511/2021 by the petitioner seeking permission to
appear and argue in person is allowed.
The appeal is allowed in terms of the Signed Reportable Order.
No order as to costs.
All pending applications stand disposed of.
(SHRADDHA MISHRA) (RANJANA SHAILEY)
SENIOR PERSONAL ASSISTANT COURT MASTER (NSH)
(Signed Reportable Order is placed on the file)