Facts
Pappayammal instituted C.S. No. 1132 of 2009 seeking, among other reliefs, a declaration and vacant possession of the suit property.
Source reference: p. 3–4After her death, A. Nagarajan applied to be brought on record, claiming to be her adopted son under an Adoption Deed dated 15 May 2015.
Source reference: p. 3–4The Single Judge directed him to adduce evidence on that claim; his proof affidavit was filed and his cross-examination completed.
Source reference: p. 3–4The Single Judge subsequently permitted him to come on record as plaintiff, leaving his status for determination during the suit. Legal representatives of a deceased defendant appealed that order.
Source reference: p. 3–4Issues
Whether Nagarajan, whose asserted adoption was disputed, could be permitted to come on record as Pappayammal’s legal representative without first determining the genuineness of the adoption.
Source reference: p. 5–6Law Applied
The Court applied Order XXII Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, under which a dispute about who is the legal representative of a deceased party must be determined by the court.
Source reference: no citationThe Court held that where the claimant’s status as an adopted child—and consequently as legal representative—is disputed, that status must be determined before the claimant is permitted to come on record.
Source reference: no citationReasoning
Nagarajan’s claim to represent Pappayammal rested on the disputed Adoption Deed, and the Single Judge had already directed evidence on that question, with cross-examination completed.
Source reference: p. 5–6In those circumstances, the Court held that the legal-representative issue had to be decided under Order XXII Rule 5 CPC on the evidence recorded; it could not be left open for determination through pleadings and trial after Nagarajan had been permitted to come on record.
Source reference: p. 5–6Holding
The Court allowed the appeal and set aside the Single Judge’s order.
It remitted the matter to the Single Judge to determine, in accordance with law and on the basis of the evidence already recorded, whether Nagarajan is Pappayammal’s legal representative, and thereafter to proceed with the suit on its merits.
Source reference: p. 6No costs were ordered; the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.
Source reference: p. 6Original Court PDF
Kumar BalachandranvsP. Pappayammal (Died) 1. A.Nagarajan
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
