KARUPPASWAMY AND OTHERS versus C. RAMAMURTHY
Where a plaintiff files a suit against a dead defendant in ignorance of the defendant's death, and the court is satisfied that the omission was a mistake made in good faith, the legal representatives can be substituted and the suit is deemed instituted on the date of the original plaint under Section 21(1) proviso of the Limitation Act, 1963.
- Parties
- Appellant: Karuppaswamy and Others; Respondent: C. Ramamurthy
- Jurisdiction
- India
- Judgment Date
- 14 July 1993
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Final Judgment
- Outcome
- appeal dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Substitution of Parties, Mistake in Instituting Suit, Limitation Act 1963 Section 21, Instituting Suit Against Dead Person
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Karuppaswamy and Others
Appellant
C. Ramamurthy
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Final Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether a suit filed against a dead person is non-est and can legal representatives be substituted under Limitation Act, 1963 Section 21(1) proviso.
- 2 Whether omission to include legal representatives was a mistake made in good faith as required by Section 21(1) proviso.
Ratio Decidendi
Where a plaintiff files a suit against a dead defendant in ignorance of the defendant's death, and the court is satisfied that the omission was a mistake made in good faith, the legal representatives can be substituted and the suit is deemed instituted on the date of the original plaint under Section 21(1) proviso of the Limitation Act, 1963.
Court Disposition
appeal dismissed
Orders
- Appeal is dismissed; no order as to costs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment