Legatees under a disputed will may remain parties to final-decree proceedings only after proving the will.

The plaintiffs obtained a preliminary decree for partition and allotment of a 1/6 share in 2010. The decree was affirmed in appeals by the Madras High Court in 2022 and by the Supreme Court in 2023.

While the plaintiffs’ application for a final decree was pending, the petitioners sought impleadment under Order I Rule 10 CPC, claiming through two alleged wills executed by the deceased fifth defendant, Hamsa Bai.

They had also filed a separate suit seeking, among other reliefs, a declaration that the earlier decree was not binding on them.

The trial court dismissed the impleadment application, reasoning that the petitioners were neither necessary nor proper parties.

Whether the petitioners, claiming through an alleged will of a party to the partition suit, should be impleaded in the pending final-decree proceedings.

Whether impleadment permits the petitioners to raise independent claims or reopen matters determined by the preliminary decree in the final-decree proceedings.

Order I Rule 10(2) CPC permits the addition of a party where that person’s presence is appropriate for the effective adjudication of the matters before the court.

In final-decree proceedings, the court cannot reopen findings that have attained finality in the preliminary decree; those proceedings are confined to working out the declared shares through division by metes and bounds.

A person claiming under a will must prove it in accordance with the applicable law of evidence before being permitted to remain as a party on that basis.

The judgment identifies Article 227 of the Constitution as the jurisdiction invoked, but cites no precedent.

The petitioners’ asserted interest under Hamsa Bai’s alleged wills gave them a sufficient connection to the property for them to be treated as proper parties in the final-decree proceedings.

Their presence could also prevent a later contention that the final decree was passed behind their back while their separate challenge to the preliminary decree remained pending.

However, impleadment does not entitle them to relitigate matters settled by the preliminary decree or to pursue their independent title claims in the final-decree proceedings; those claims must be pursued in the separate suit.

Their continued participation on the basis of the wills is conditional on proving the wills.

The petitioners may be impleaded as respondents in the final-decree proceedings, but may not agitate independent rights there and must prove the alleged wills to remain as parties on that basis.

The trial court was directed to dispose of the final-decree application within three months of receiving the order; no costs were awarded.