Pappammal (Died) through Lr R. Krsna Murtii v. Jothi & Anr.: Supreme Court Affirms Daughter’s Right to Be Heard

COURTKUTCHEHRY SPECIAL SERIES ON LANDMARKS JDUGEMENTS ON WILLS, CODICIL & PROBATE

 

Pappammal (Died) through Lr R. Krsna Murtii v. Jothi & Anr.: Supreme Court Affirms Daughter’s Right to Be Heard

 

All Heirs Disputing Will Must Be Parties

 

Son’s Appeal Against Impleadment Dismissed

Also Read: Derek A C Lobo & Others v. Ulric M A Lobo (Dead) by Lrs. & Others: Supreme Court Confirms Probate of Mother’s Will

 

By Vishwas Kumar

New Delhi: March 19, 2026:

 

In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court of India in Pappammal (Died) through Lr R. Krsna Murtii v. Jothi and Another (Civil Appeal No. 3395 of 2025, arising out of SLP (C) No. 4293 of 2024) clarified the importance of including all heirs in disputes involving contested Wills. The Division Bench comprising Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra dismissed the son’s appeal and upheld the daughter’s impleadment in the property dispute.

Also Read: Savitri Bai & Another v. Savitri Bai: Supreme Court Upholds Validity of Will Over Sale Deed

The case stemmed from the death of Pappammal, whose son claimed exclusive ownership of her estate based on a Will executed in 2016. He opposed the impleadment of his sister, arguing that the Will granted him sole rights. The daughter, however, challenged the validity of the Will and sought to be made a party to the proceedings. The trial court allowed her impleadment, recognizing her interest in the disputed property. The son’s challenge eventually reached the Supreme Court.

The apex court held that when the validity of a Will is under dispute, all legal heirs are necessary parties to ensure a fair adjudication of title. The Bench emphasized that excluding an heir from such proceedings would undermine the principle of natural justice and could result in an incomplete determination of rights. By affirming the daughter’s impleadment, the Court reinforced the need for inclusive participation in succession disputes.

This judgment underscores the judiciary’s commitment to protecting the rights of women in inheritance matters and ensures that contested Wills cannot be used to bypass rightful heirs. The ruling also sends a strong message that property disputes must be resolved with all stakeholders present, thereby preventing unilateral claims from overshadowing legitimate challenges.

Also Read: Thangam & Another v. Navamani Ammal: Supreme Court Upholds Validity of Registered Will

 

 

For More, Read Here the Summary of the Judgement from the Book:  WILL WRITING SIMPLIFIED, read below or open page no 436, Chapter 14.1 in the book. (Online book purchase link available here on: Buy online: Amazon | Flipkart

 

 

 

Also Read: Meera Devi (D) Thr. Lr. v. Dinesh Chandra Joshi (D) Thr. Lrs: Supreme Court Orders Eviction for Rent Default

1.         Facts of the Case:

Pappammal, aged about 97, filed a suit (O.S. No. 155/2017) for declaration and recovery of possession against R.R. Jagadesan. The suit was prosecuted by her son (appellant) as power agent. During pendency, she died on 10.01.2020. The appellant sought substitution as legal representative relying on a registered Will dated 13.06.2016 in his favour. The Trial Court dismissed the application for lack of legal-heir certificate and for non-impleadment of other heirs. The High Court affirmed. The Supreme Court (in Civil Appeal No. 4832/2022) set aside those orders and directed reconsideration under Order XXII Rule 5 CPC. The Trial Court thereafter substituted the appellant as plaintiff. Subsequently, the deceased’s daughter (respondent no. 1) filed I.A. No. 6/2023 under Order I Rule 10(2) CPC to implead herself as defendant, which the Trial Court allowed. The High Court dismissed the appellant’s revision. Hence, this appeal.

 

2.         Law Points Involved:

(i).        Determination of “legal representative” under Order XXII Rule 5 CPC.

(ii).       Impleadment of necessary parties under Order I Rule 10(2) CPC.

(iii).      Whether a legal heir claiming under an allegedly forged Will can exclude other heirs from being parties.

(iii).      Scope of Court’s power to ensure all necessary parties are heard in property-title disputes.

 

3.         Acts / Provisions / Articles Referred:

(i).        Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 —Order 1 Rule 10(2); Order 22 Rule 5.

 

4.         Judgments Referred:

(i).        R. Krsna Murtii Vs R. R. Jagadesan in Civil Appeal No. 4832 of 2022 (21.07.2022) directing reconsideration under Order XXII Rule 5 CPC.

Also Read: N.P. Saseendran v. N.P. Ponnamma & Ors.: Supreme Court Upholds Daughter’s Ownership Rights

[https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/1133066/r-krsna-murtii-appellant-hash-r-r-jagadesan-respondent]

Also Read: Chinu Rani Ghosh v. Subhash Ghosh & Others: Supreme Court Rejects Suspicious Will, Restores Equal Shares

 

5.         Obiter Dicta:

(i).        The aim of a civil trial is to discover the truth; hence all necessary parties with a legitimate interest must be heard.

(ii).       Substitution of one heir as plaintiff does not preclude impleadment of other heirs as defendants where title is contested.

(iii).      The Court’s previous order did not bar others from contesting the Will.

 

6.         Ratio Decidendi:

Where rival claims arise among legal heirs regarding a deceased plaintiff’s property, the Court must permit impleadment of all concerned under Order I Rule 10(2) CPC to enable full adjudication. Substitution of one heir as