Chandrasoma Perera v. Sulaiman Pillai Adam – sllr 1992 volume 1 page 120

In the case between Miss W. Chandrasoma Perera (Petitioner) and M. Soranam (original Respondent) and Sulaiman Pillai Adam (proposed substituted party), the court addressed the issue of whether the petitioner’s application to substitute Sulaiman Pillai Adam as the respondent upon the deceased’s death was legally sustainable. The court held that the application for substitution could not succeed, establishing that sufficient evidence was not led to prove Sulaiman Pillai Adam was the executor-de-son-tort. The principle reaffirmed is that substitution under Sections 394 and 760A of the Civil Procedure Code is appropriate only when the requirements regarding representation of the deceased’s estate are duly satisfied. This decision relied on relevant statutes and precedents such as Iso Nona v. H