OSA/119/2026 of Kumar Balachandran Vs P. Pappayammal (Died) 1. A.Nagarajan on 28 September 2026

J U D G M E N T

(Judgment of the Court was delivered by P.Velmurugan J.) This intra-Court appeal is directed against the order dated 26.09.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in A.No.5316 of 2022 in C.S.No.1132 of 2009.

2. The suit in C.S.No.1132 of 2009 was instituted by Pappayammal seeking declaration and delivery of vacant possession in respect of the suit property bearing No.30/1, Arcot Street, T.Nagar, Chennai, measuring 2 Grounds and 700 sq.ft., besides challenging the Sale Deed dated 07.05.2008. The suit was founded, inter alia, on her claim that she was the only daughter and legal heir of O.V.Parthasarathy and S.V.Lakshmiammal. The said property was originally purchased by S.V.Lakshmiammal under a registered Sale Deed vide Doc.No.1896/1940 and was subsequently bequeathed by her under a registered Will dated 21.05.1998 in favour of her daughter Chandrika Ayyar, pursuant to which probate was granted in O.P.No.734 of 2007.

3. During the pendency of the suit, Chandrika Ayyar died on 02.11.2015 as a spinster. Thereafter, certain persons claimed to be her Class-II legal heirs. Pappayammal also claimed to be her Class-I legal heir; however, her claim was rejected after recording evidence, and the appeal preferred thereafter was also dismissed. Defendants 4 to 9 were thereafter impleaded as the legal heirs of the deceased first defendant Chandrika Ayyar in the suit. Subsequently, Pappayammal died on 15.08.2022.

4. Thereafter, the first respondent (A.Nagarajan) filed A.No.5316 of 2022, claiming to be the adopted son of the deceased Pappayammal on the strength of an alleged Adoption Deed dated 15.05.2015, and sought to come on record in the pending proceedings. By order dated 15.03.2023, the learned Single Judge directed him to let in evidence in support of his claim, and his evidence was accordingly recorded. His proof affidavit was filed on 31.07.2023 and his cross-examination was completed on 20.08.2024. While the said application was pending, the fifth defendant died and the appellants, claiming to be her legal representatives, filed A.No.4162 and 4163 of 2025 seeking their impleadment in A.No.5316 of 2022. By the impugned order, the learned Single Judge allowed the applications and permitted the first respondent to come on record as plaintiff. Aggrieved by the same, the present intra-Court appeal has been filed.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that the first respondent (A.Nagarajan) is a third party to the suit and claims to be the adopted son of the deceased Pappayammal on the basis of the alleged Adoption Deed dated 15.05.2015. According to the learned counsel, the alleged adoption was never asserted by Pappayammal during her lifetime and, therefore, the first respondent’s status as her legal representative was a matter requiring determination in accordance with Order XXII Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It was contended that, despite evidence having already been recorded on the issue pursuant to the order dated 15.03.2023, the learned Single

Judge permitted the first respondent to come on record and left the question of his status to be adjudicated in the suit. The learned counsel therefore prayed for setting aside the impugned order.

6. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants and the respondents 1 and 2 and perused the materials available on record.

7. The main issue that arises for consideration is as to whether the first respondent, who claims to be the adopted son of the deceased Pappayammal, can be permitted to come on record as her legal representative without first determining the genuineness of the alleged adoption.

8. Admittedly, the first respondent claims to be the adopted son of the deceased Pappayammal on the strength of the Adoption Deed dated 15.05.2015, and his status is seriously disputed. Since the learned Single Judge had directed him to let in evidence on the said issue and his cross-examination was completed, the question of his status as the adopted son and consequently as the legal representative of the deceased plaintiff ought to have been determined in terms of Order XXII Rule 5 of CPC before permitting him to come on record. The question of his status could not have been left open merely by permitting him to come on record and relegating the parties to raise the issue in the written statement and during the trial. Therefore, the said approach adopted by the learned Single Judge cannot be sustained.

9. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 26.09.2025 passed in A.No.5316 of 2022 in C.S.No.1132 of 2009 is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the learned Single Judge to determine, in accordance with law, on the basis of the evidence already recorded, the status of the first respondent as the legal representative of the deceased plaintiff Pappayammal, and thereafter proceed with the suit on merits and in accordance with law.

10. In the result, the intra-Court appeal is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. (P.V.,J.) (G.K.M.,J.) 28-09-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No ms

P.VELMURUGAN J. AND GK.MUTHUKUMAAR J. ms O.S.A.No.119 of 2026 and C.M.P.No.17299 of 2026 28-09-2026