Suit against a dead person is not a nullity if the right to sue survives and legal heirs are impleaded.

The Plaintiff (Respondent 1) filed a suit in March 2020 for declaration of title and mandatory injunction against one Vijayalakshmi regarding an encroachment on "B" schedule property

Summons were served via substitute service as the Defendant's residence was in Chennai

Subsequently, Dr. G. Rajendra Prasad (Petitioner in CRP 2470/2023) filed I.A. No. 1 of 2021, claiming to be the power agent of the deceased Defendant’s son, K. Sathish Premnath, and moved to dismiss the suit as a nullity because Vijayalakshmi had died in 2016, prior to the suit's filing

The Plaintiff then filed I.A. No. 3 of 2021 under Order I Rule 10(2) CPC to implead the son as the legal heir

The Trial Court dismissed I.A. No. 1 of 2021 as the petitioner failed to produce a Power of Attorney or seek recognition as an agent

It also dismissed I.A. No. 3 of 2021 due to procedural defects but granted the Plaintiff liberty to file a fresh application with correct particulars

1. Whether a suit filed against a dead person is an absolute nullity when the plaintiff acted in good faith and the right to sue survives against legal heirs

2. Whether a third party, claiming to be a power agent without filing the underlying Power of Attorney or seeking court recognition, has the standing to seek dismissal of a suit

3. Whether the Trial Court can grant liberty to file a fresh impleading application after dismissing a procedurally defective one

The court primarily applied Section 151 of the CPC regarding the inherent powers of the court and Order I Rule 10(2) CPC concerning the addition of parties

It relied on the principle that while a decree against a dead person is a nullity, a pending suit is not automatically void if the right to sue survives

The court cited *C. Saroja v. Shriram City Union Finance Limited* (2009), which integrated precedents from *Ramprasad Dagaduram v. Vijaykumar Motilal Hirakhanwala* (AIR 1967 SC 278), establishing that Courts should permit bringing legal representatives on record to uphold the validity of the original presentation of the plaint if the claim is established on merits

It also assessed Order XXII Rule 4 of the CPC as the appropriate procedure for impleading legal heirs of a deceased defendant

The Court found that although the suit was filed against a deceased person, the Plaintiff’s ignorance of the death (which occurred in 2016) was plausible because the Defendant resided in Chennai while the property was in Tiruttani

Since the suit was for declaration of title and the estate was now held by the son, the right to sue survived

The Court reasoned that the general rule of "nullity" applies to decrees, but for pending suits, procedural errors can be rectified to prevent the lapse of legitimate claims

Regarding CRP 2470, the Court held that the petitioner remained a "third party" because he failed to produce the Power of Attorney or move an application for recognition as an agent, thus lacking the locus standi to pray for the suit's dismissal

Regarding CRP 2472, while the Plaintiff’s use of Order I Rule 10(2) was technically incorrect, the Trial Court’s decision to grant liberty to file a fresh application under the correct provision (Order XXII Rule 4) was a valid exercise of judicial discretion to ensure justice

It held that the suit was not a nullity and the Trial Court correctly dismissed the third-party application due to lack of standing

The Court upheld the liberty granted to the Plaintiff to file a fresh application for impleading legal heirs under Order XXII Rule 4 CPC, along with applications for condonation of delay and setting aside abatement, to be filed within three weeks

No costs were awarded