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

1992 Supreme(Raj) 966

RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
B.R.Arora, J.
Amar Chand and ors. - Appellant
Versus
Gram Panchayat and ors - Respondent
S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 153 of 1974.
Decided On : 25-11-1992

Advocates:
For the Petitioner:H.M. Parekh, Advocate.
For the Non-petitioners 2: Smt. Naju and others
For the Non-petitioner:R. Mehta, Advocate.

A decree passed against a dead person is a nullity and the entire appeal stands abated against all the respondents due to the abatement of the appeal against one of the respondents.

Headnote:

ABATEMENT OF APPEAL - DEATH OF RESPONDENT - LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES NOT BROUGHT ON RECORD - DECREE PASSED AGAINST DEAD PERSON - NULLITY - INHERENT POWERS OF COURT UNDER SECTION 151 CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE - SETTING ASIDE OF DECREE.

Fact of the Case:

Plaintiffs filed a suit for specific performance of a contract against the Gram Panchayat, a third party, and the Collector. The trial court dismissed the suit, and the plaintiffs appealed. The High Court allowed the appeal and decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiffs. However, one of the respondents, Moti, had died during the pendency of the appeal, and no application was made to bring his legal representatives on record.

Finding of the Court:

The High Court held that the decree passed against the deceased respondent was a nullity and deserved to be quashed and set aside. The Court also held that the entire appeal stood abated against all the respondents as the decree for specific performance was dependent on the decree of possession over the plot in question, which could not be taken from the legal representatives of the deceased respondent.

Issues: 1. Whether the decree passed against a deceased person is a nullity? 2. Whether the entire appeal stands abated against all the respondents due to the abatement of the appeal against one of the respondents?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. A decree or order passed against a dead person is a nullity as no relief can be granted against a dead person. 2. The decree of specific performance in absence of the decree of possession will be ineffective and cannot be successfully executed. The result of the abatement of the appeal against the respondent Moti is, therefore, that the possession of the plot in question cannot be taken from the legal representatives of deceased Moti and the decree of specific performance cannot be effectively executed. The necessary corollary of the same is that the whole appeal, filed by the plaintiff-appellants, stands abated against all the defendant-respondents.

Final Decision: The High Court allowed the application under Section 151 Civil Procedure Code filed by the defendants, dismissed the appeal, and set aside the decree and judgment dated February 20, 1988, passed by the Hon'ble Single Judge of this Court as it already stood abated quo all the respondent-defendants.

JUDGMENT

1. - Plaintiff Amar Chand and Sagar Mal filed a suit for. specific performance of the contract against the Gram Panchayat, Sanchore (defendant No. 1), Moti (defendant No. 2) and the Collector, Jalore (defendant No. 3) and It was prayed that the defendant No. 1 may be directed to execute a sale-deed of the plot in question in favour of the plaintiffs and deliver its possession to them. It was, also, prayed that the defendant No. 2, who is in possession of the plot in question, has no title or Interest in the suit plot as the defendant No. 1 has already sold the plot in question in a public auction to the plaintiffs and, therefore, the plaintiffs are entitled to got the possession of the land In question and the same may be delivered to them after taking over the possession thereof from the defendant No. 2. The suit was contested by the defendants. The learned Munsif, Sanchore, by its decree and judgement dated November 29, 1971, dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiffs. Dissatisfied with the decree and judgement dated November 29, 1971, passed by the learned Munslf and Judicial Magistrate, Sanchore, the plaintiffs preferred an appeal before the learned District Judge, Jalore, which was transferred to the Court of the Civil Judge, Balotra (Camp Jalore), who, by his decree and judgement sdated November 24, 1972, dismissed the appeal filed by the plaintiffs and maintained the decree and judgement passed by the learned Munsif, Sanchore, Aggrieved with the decree and judgement passed by the learned Civil Judge, Balotra (camp Jalore), the plaintiffs preferred the present appeal before this Court. During the pendency of the appeal, the respondent No. 2 Moti died on December 19, 1977, but no application for taking the legal representatives of deceased Moti on record was moved either by the appellants or by the respondents. The appeal was, therefore, heard by the Hon'ble Single Judge of this Court. The Hon'ble Single Judge of this Court (Hon'ble Shri S.K. Mal Lodha - as He then was), by his decree and judgement dated February 20, 1986, allowed the appeal filed by the plaintiffs and decreed the suit in the following terms:

"The plaintiffs shall deposit the balance of Rs. 985/- in the Court of Munsif, Sanchore, within one month from today. On such deposit being made, the Gram Panchayat, Sanchore, shall execute the sale-deed in favour of the plaintiffs in respect of the land in question. The expenses relating to sale shall be born by the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs shall, also, be entitled to the possession of the land in question which is in occupation of defendant No. 2. A decree for possession in respect of the land in question is, also, passed in favour of the plaintiffs and against the Gram Panchayat, Sanchore, as well as defendant No. 2 Moti."

After the disposal of the appeal, an application under Order 22 Rule 4 read with Section 151 Civil Procedure Code was moved by Mafat Lal - the legal representative of deceased Moti on April 8, 1980 to the effect that Moti Lal died on December 19, 1977, and the appeal, therefore, stands abated against the deceased defendant Moti as no application for impleading his legal representatives as party was made. During the pendency of this application, Mafat Lal, also, died on June 9, 1992, and, therefore, an application under Order 22 Rule 3 Civil Procedure Code was moved on behalf of the legal representatives of deceased Mafat Lal for substituting their names in place of Mafat Lal. The legal representatives of deceased Moti Lal, namely, Smt. Naju and Ors., also, filed an application under Order 47 Rules 1 and 2 Civil Procedure Code for reviewing the judgment dated February 20, 1986, passed by Hon'ble the Single Judge of this Court in the appeal. Both the applications filed by the legal representatives of the deceased Moti Lal and Mafat Lal were contested by the plaintiff-appellants.

2. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the legal representatives of deceased Moti Lal that Moti Lal died









Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

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