Any decree passed in favor of or against a dead person is a nullity. Unregistered sale agreements are void under Section 17(1)(g) of A.P. Amendment Act 4 of 1999. Compliance with procedural requirements under Order 21 Rule 34(2) CPC is essential for execution of sale deeds.

JUDGMENT :

K. MANMADHA RAO, J.

1. The present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by the appellant aggrieved by the order dated 26.07.2023 passed in E.P.No. 23 of 2019 in O.S No. 34 of 2014 on the file of the VI Additional District Judge, Krishna at Machilipatnam (for short “the Court below”).

2. The appellant herein is the defendant/J.Dr and the respondents herein are the plaintiffs/D.Hrs.

3. Originally the suit in O.S No. 34 of 2014 was filed on the file of the District Judge, Krishna at Machilipatnam (for short “the trial Court”), for grant of specific performance of agreement of sale executed by the defendant/J.Dr in favour of the plaintiffs/D.Hrs. The same was decreed with cots by the trial Court vide decree and judgment dated 30.04.2019 and the defendant was directed to execute a registered sale deed in respect of suit property by receiving the balance of sale consideration amount of Rs.7,71,095/- within a period of two months from the date of judgment and handover the vacant possession of the suit property to the plaintiffs, failing which the plaintiffs are entitled to obtain the registered sale deed and vacant possession of the suit property through process of the Court. Though the defendant has not complied with the order of the trial Court, the plaintiffs/D.Hrs filed the impugned E.P.No. 23 of 2019 in O.S No. 34 of 2014 on the file of VI Additional District Judge, Krishna at Machilipatnam (for short “the Court below”) under Order 21 Rule 34 of CPC seeking for a direction to the defendant/ J.Dr for execution of the registered sale deed in favour of the D.Hrs. The same was allowed by the Court below vide order dated 26.07.2023. Aggrieved by the same, the present civil miscellaneous appeal came to be filed.

4. Heard Sri P. Durga Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the appellant. Despite service of notice, none appeared on behalf of the respondents.

5. On hearing, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the order of the Court below is erroneous, contrary to law, weight of evidence and probabilities of the case. He further submits that the impugned order is opposed to the very spirit and object of the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. He submits that the Court below ought to have seen that the 1st respondent died on 1.11.2022 and passing of order in E.P No. 23 of 2019 on 26.7.2023 in favour of dead person will not hold good in absence of getting his L.Rs on record. He further submits that the Court below grossly erred in appreciating the contents of the counter that AS No. 653 of 2019 is pending before this Hon’ble Court and the Court below ought to have seen that the Court cannot execute sale deed in furtherance of suit agreement of sale in favour of dead person. He mainly submits that the reasons assigned by the Court below in the impugned are neither sustainable nor tenable in the eye of law and liable to be set aside.

6. To support his contentions, learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon a decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in Gurnam Singh (D) through LRs. and Others vs. Gurbachan Kaur (D) by LRs. and Others, (2017) 4 Supreme 549 wherein it was held that:

During pendency of the second appeal, Gurbachan Kaur-appellant (plaintiff) died on 10.05.1994. Likewise, Joginder Singh (respondent-defendant No. 2) died on 06.12.2000 and lastly Gurnam Singh (respondent-defendant No. 4) also died on 19.04.2002. Despite bringing to the notice of the High Court about the death of the appellant and the two respondents, no steps were taken by anyone to bring their legal representatives on record to enable them to prosecute the lis involved in the appeal.

The question, therefore, is whether the impugned judgment/order is a nullity because it was passed by the High Court in favour of and also against the dead persons. In our considered opinion, it is a nullity. The reasons are not far to seek.

7. In another decision of High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur in a case of Raniya Bai W/o Madhav Rathore vs. Te