Claimants under a Will are entitled to impleadment in partition appeals to establish testamentary succession regarding declared shares.

The petitioners filed applications (I.A. Nos. III and IV) to be impleaded in a pending Regular First Appeal arising from a partition suit.

They claimed to be beneficiaries (legatees) under Wills executed by deceased defendants Karabasappa and Halavva, who had been allotted 17/90th shares each by the Trial Court.

The Appellate Court (II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Haveri) rejected these applications on the ground that the petitioners could not participate in the proceedings until the Wills were first proved in a court of law.

The petitioners challenged this rejection via a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.

1. Whether a First Appellate Court can reject an impleadment application by a legatee solely because the underlying Will is yet to be proved

2. Whether the validity of a Will executed by a deceased sharer must be adjudicated within the partition suit or through independent proceedings

The court applied Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), establishing that a First Appeal is a continuation of the original suit and the Appellate Court is the final court of facts with powers co-extensive with the Trial Court.

It further relied on the principle from Sampath Kumar v. Ayyakannu, (2002) 7 SCC 559, which mandates that courts should decide all issues arising from subsequent events during pendency to avoid multiplicity of litigation.

Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum reasoned that since the deceased testators were already allotted specific shares in the preliminary decree, any person claiming under a testamentary disposition acquires a "direct and substantial interest" in the litigation.

The court held that the Appellate Court erred in law by requiring a prior independent adjudication of the Wills, as this overlooks the nature of the first appeal as a "continuation of original proceedings".

In partition suits, the death of a sharer necessitates the court to determine whether succession is intestate or testamentary to accurately work out the preliminary decree.

The court observed that the Appellate Court has the authority to record evidence itself or remit the limited issue to the Trial Court to ensure a comprehensive resolution and avoid conflicting decisions.

The High Court allowed the writ petition and quashed the orders on I.A. Nos. III and IV, directing the Appellate Court to permit the petitioners to come on record and afford them an opportunity to establish the Wills in accordance with law, keeping all rival contentions open.