The Supreme Court of India rules that an appellate decree in favor of deceased appellants is null and void. The judgment restores the original trial court verdict, allowing execution proceedings to move forward.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: In a landmark judgment, the Supreme Court of India has ruled that a decree passed by an appellate court in favour of appellants who had died before the hearing of the appeal is a nullity in law. The Court held that in such cases, the original decree of the trial court revives and becomes executable.
A bench of Justice P. S. Narasimha and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar delivered the ruling while allowing a civil appeal filed by Mr. Vikram Bhalchandra Ghongade, the legal heir of the original plaintiffs. The Court restored execution proceedings for a 2006 trial court decree that had earlier been dismissed by the executing court and the High Court.
Background of the Case
The dispute arose from Regular Civil Suit No. 181 of 2001, filed by the legal heirs of late Mr. Arjunrao Thakre, an ex-Army serviceman who was allotted agricultural land in Wardha district, Maharashtra. After his death, the land was allegedly re-allotted by the Collector to defendants 3 to 5.
On August 14, 2006, the trial court decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiffs, declaring the re-allotment illegal and affirming their ownership and right to possession.
Defendants Nos. 4 and 5 filed a first appeal challenging this decree. However, during its pendency:
- Defendant No. 4 died on October 27, 2006
- Defendant No. 5 died on September 20, 2010
Despite this, the first appellate court heard arguments on September 28, 2010, after both appellants had died, and delivered its judgment on October 20, 2010, modifying the trial court’s decree. The fact of the appellants’ deaths was never brought to the court’s attention.
When the plaintiffs attempted to execute the original 2006 decree, both the executing court and the High Court dismissed their efforts, holding that the trial court decree had merged with the modified appellate decree. The matter then reached the Supreme Court.
ALSO READ: Judiciary Exists for Citizens, Judges Are No More Feudal Lords: CJI BR Gavai
Issue Before the Supreme Court
Whether a judgment or decree passed by an appellate court in favour of appellants who were already dead before the hearing can be considered valid in law.
Supreme Court’s Ruling and Reasoning
The Supreme Court categorically held that such a decree is a nullity. Writing for the bench, Justice Atul S. Chandurkar stated:
“The decree passed by the first appellate court having been passed in an appeal where both appellants had expired prior to the appeal being heard, its decree in favour of dead persons was a nullity. The decree passed by the trial court, therefore, is liable to be executed.”
The Court rejected the application of Order XXII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), which saves judgments pronounced after the death of a party only if the death occurred after the conclusion of the hearing but before pronouncement. Since both appellants were deceased before the appeal was heard, Rule 6 did not apply.
The bench also clarified that the 90-day limitation period for bringing legal heirs on record was irrelevant because the appeal itself was heard and decided without living appellants, making the decree fundamentally void.
Citing precedents such as:
- Rajendra Prasad & Anr. v. Khirodhar Mahto & Ors.
- Amba Bai & Ors. v. Gopal & Ors.
- Bibi Rahmani Khatoon v. Harkoo Gope & Ors.
- Kiran Singh v. Chaman Paswan & Ors.
…the Court reaffirmed that a null decree has no force of law and its invalidity can be raised at any stage, including during execution proceedings.
The Supreme Court’s decision restores the trial court’s decree dated August 14, 2006, in favour of the plaintiffs. The orders of the executing court (June 21, 2023) and the High Court (March 11, 2024) were set aside, and the execution proceedings were revived.
The Court further held that since the legal heirs of defendant Nos. 4 and 5 never sought substitution or impleadment, the appeal stood vitiated, and any decree passed in such circumstances was void ab initio.
Case Title:
VIKRAM BHALCHANDRA GHONGADE VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.
Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 9947 of 2024
READ JUDGMENT
