Madhi vs Mahanbai - 1972 Supreme(SC) 26

Headnote Court Copy Facts Arguments Court observation Judicial Analysis Case Map Category Hierarchy Table of Content

1972 Supreme(SC) 26

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K.S. HEGDE AND P. JAGANMOHAN REDDY AND D.G. PALEKAR, JJ.
Madhi, Appellant
Versus
Mahanbai and others, Respondents.
Civil Appeal No. 541 of 1967, D/- 13-1-1972.

Important Points

An appeal abates when the appellant fails to bring the legal representatives of a deceased respondent, specifically a joint decree-holder, on record, particularly after being informed of the death.

Subject

Civil Law - Civil Procedure

Act Referred

CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE: O.20 R.11

Headnote

(A) Civil Procedure - Abatement of Appeal - Failure to bring legal representatives of a deceased respondent on record - Where one of the joint decree-holders died during the pendency of the appeal and the appellant failed to bring the legal representatives of the deceased on record despite being informed of the death, the appeal abates.

Facts of the case:
A suit for possession was decreed by the trial court, reversed by the first appellate court, and subsequently restored by the appellate court. An appeal was then filed by special leave. During the pendency of the proceedings, one of the joint decree-holders died. Despite the counsel for the appellant being informed of the death, the legal representatives of the deceased respondent were not brought on record.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the appellant failed to move for the substitution of the deceased respondent's legal representatives despite having knowledge of the death, leading to the abatement of the appeal.

Issues: Whether the appeal abates due to the failure of the appellant to bring the legal representatives of a deceased joint decree-holder on record.

Ratio Decidendi: An appeal is liable to abate if the legal representatives of a deceased necessary party, such as a joint decree-holder, are not brought on record during the pendency of the litigation.

Result: Appeal dismissed.

Legal Category Hierarchy

Judgement

This appeal abates. The material facts are these. The two respondents as joint plaintiffs filed a suit for possession of the suit property. Their suit was decreed as prayed for. A joint decree in their favour was passed by the trial court. The appellant appealed against the decree. The first appellate court reversed the decree of the trail court and dismissed the suit. The two plaintiffs went up in appeal to the High Court. The High Court reversed the decree of the first appellate court and restored that of the trial court. Thereafter the appellant brought this appeal by special leave. During the pendency of the appeal in this court one of the plaintiffs who was a joint decree-holder, as mentioned earlier, died some time in 1968 but the appellant failed to bring her legal representatives on record. We are informed that when this appeal came up for hearing before this court in December, 1970 the advocate for the respondents informed the counsel for the appellant about the death of one of the respondents. Yet the legal representatives of the deceased respondent have not been brought on record. Mr. K. Rajendra Chaudhri appearing for the appellant informs us that though he informed the local counsel as to the necessity of bringing on record the legal representatives of the deceased respondent, yet the appellant has not chosen to move in that matter. Under these circumstances we must hold that the appeal has abated. Appeal is accordingly dismissed with costs. Today s hearing fee will not be included.

Appeal dismissed.

For Citation : AIR 1972 SC 1455