R. KRSNA MURTII Vs. R. R. JAGADESAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave granted.

(2.) We have heard the appellant appearing in person and the learned counsel appearing for the sole respondent. Shorn of unnecessary details, the relevant aspects of the present matter are that the appellant herein had been the power of attorney holder of his mother, who had filed the subject suit for declaration and perpetual injunction and alternatively, for declaration and recovery of possession against the respondent. The suit was being prosecuted by the appellant as the power agent of the plaintiff. The said plaintiff, mother of the appellant, expired on 10/1/2020. Thereafter, the appellant moved an application, being I.A. No. 1 of 2020, seeking his substitution as legal representative of the deceased plaintiff with the assertion that the plaintiff, his mother, had executed a Will dtd. 13/6/2016 in his favour with respect to all her estate and the said Will was registered with the Sub-Registrar Office, Perambalur.

(3.) This application was considered by the learned Sub-ordinate Judge, Perambalur in the order dtd. 29/3/2021, wherein the submissions on behalf of the defendant-respondent were taken into consideration that the appellant was not the only legal heir of the deceased plaintiff; and that the deceased had another son and one daughter and without impleading them, the appellant was not entitled to proceed further. The learned Trial Judge was of the view that from the Will itself, existence of other son and daughter of the deceased plaintiff was evident; and that the execution and attestation were not the questions to be decided at the given stage.