Supreme Court on Minor's Rights and Order 41 Rule 25 CPC: Partition Dispute and the Will Controversy.


16 September 2025 Wills/Trusts >> Family Law   |   Partition Related Issue >> Property & Real Estate  

In a recent ruling, the Supreme Court of India reasserted the need to protect the rights of children in civil lawsuits, especially when matters of inheritance and partition come into play. The case involved an old familial conflict where the initial plaintiff had requested partition of ancestral property against his brother, sister, and other members of the family.

A core controversy revolved around the allegation that the grandfather had made a Will in favor of certain defendants, who were minors when the trial was held. Since the trial court ruled on the suit without issuing an issue regarding the claimed Will, the interests of the minors remained largely unrepresented. On reaching majority, these defendants sought and received leave from the appellate court to file their own written statement, claiming that a Will existed.

 
 
 
 

Though the initial appellate court recognized their plea, it went ahead and determined the case without specially formulating an issue in the Will or providing them with a chance to lead evidence. Finally, the second appellate court (High Court) stepped in, setting aside the appellate decree and ordering the case to be remanded under Order 41 Rule 25 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which allows framing of further issues by the appellate court and sending them for trial.

Challenging this remand, the petitioners had submitted before the Supreme Court that no prejudice was occasioned as evidence on the Will had already been led and heard. This was, however, rejected by the Court, citing that the minors had not been represented fairly during the trial stage, and their subsequent bid to establish the Will was thwarted by the appellate court's refusal to admit evidence. In the opinion of the Court, refusing them that opportunity was tantamount to gross prejudice.

The Supreme Court, thus, maintained the High Court order of remand and instructed the first appellate court to hasten the proceedings since the suit was originally filed in 1997. Notably, the Court emphasized that after grant of leave to a party who was previously unrepresented, particularly on account of minority, they should be given a fair opportunity to put forward their case.

This judgment emphasizes two important facets of civil procedure. Firstly, the rights of children who are parties to a lawsuit cannot be sacrificed simply because their guardian does not oppose a crucial claim, say under a Will. Secondly, Order 41 Rule 25 CPC is an important provision that facilitates justice by enabling additional issues and evidence to be taken into consideration without rejecting the whole trial process. The ruling demonstrates how procedural justice is preserved even in long-term litigation, reconciling efficiency with substantial justice.


Code of Civil Procedure, 1908