SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2010 Supreme(SC) 1415

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
AFTAB ALAM, R.M. LODHA, JJ.
P. Murali Narasimhulu (Dead) by LRs. – Petitioner
Versus
Chidattala Narasimhulu – Respondent
C.A. No. 3699 of 2005
Decided On : 18-11-2010

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. A. Subba Rao.
For the Respondents: Mr. Venkateswara Rao Anumolu, Ms. T. Kanaka Durga.

Unsustainability of judgment due to the death of all respondents without their heirs being brought on record.

Headnote:

Substitution of Deceased Respondents - Second Appeal - Unsustainability of Judgment

Fact of the Case:

The appeal arose from a suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession. The plaintiffs filed the suit against four defendants, and the trial court and first appellate court dismissed the suit. The plaintiffs then appealed to the High Court, where the judgment was passed after all the respondents had died without their heirs being brought on record.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the judgment from the High Court was unsustainable as it was decided when all the respondents were dead and their heirs were not brought on record. The court set aside the judgment and remanded the matter to the High Court, emphasizing the need to consider the substitution petition filed in respect of one of the deceased respondents before proceeding with the appeal on merits.

Issues: Unsustainability of judgment due to the death of all respondents without their heirs being brought on record.

Ratio Decidendi: The judgment from the High Court was set aside due to the unsustainability of deciding the appeal when all respondents were deceased without their heirs being substituted. The court emphasized the need to consider the substitution petition before proceeding with the appeal on merits.

Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, and the judgment from the High Court was set aside. The matter was remanded to the High Court, with the direction to consider the substitution petition filed in respect of one of the deceased respondents before proceeding with the appeal on merits. No costs were awarded.

ORDER :

1. This appeal, by special leave, arises from a suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession. The appeal is filed by the heirs and legal representatives of one of the defendants.

2. The plaintiffs-respondents filed the suit against four defendants, namely: (i) Pillilla Gangulamma (ii) Pillilla Narasimhulu (iii) Pillilla Anjaneyulu (iv) Pillilla Sreeramulu. The suit was dismissed by the trial court and the plaintiffs' appeal too was dismissed by the first appellate court. Against the judgments passed by the trial court and the first appellate court, the plaintiffs-respondents came to the High Court in Second Appeal No. 344 of 1992 impleading defendant Nos. 2 to 4 as respondent Nos. 1 to 3 respectively. It may be stated here that the mother of the three defendants, namely, Pillilla Gangulamma who was defendant No. 1 before the trial court, had died in the meanwhile and her name was struck off from the record of proceedings.

3. During the pendency of the second appeal Pillilla Narasimhulu died on 08.04.1996, Pillilla Anjaneyulu died on 26.11.1992 and Pillilla Sreeramulu died on 24.03.1994. A petition for substitution vice the deceased respondent No. 2 Pillilla Anjaneyulu alone was filed before the High Court with the prayer to bring on record his heirs and legal representatives. No substitution petition was filed vice the other two deceased respondents, Pillilla Narasimhulu and Pillilla Sreeramulu. It appears that even the substitution petition filed in respect of Pillilla Anjaneyulu remained unattended and the High Court by judgment and order dated June 17, 2003, allowed the second appeal, set aside the judgments passed by trial courts below and decreed the suit of the plaintiffs-respondents.

4. From what is stated above, it is evident that the second appeal was heard and decided when all the respondents in the appeal before the High Court were dead and the heirs of none of them were brought on record. For this reason alone the judgment coming under appeal is unsustainable and it is set aside and the matter is remanded to the High Court. Needless to say that before proceeding with the second appeal on merits, the High Court will consider the substitution petition filed in respect of Pillilla Anjaneyulu and pass appropriate orders on it.

5. The appeal is allowed accordingly. No costs.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top