High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THANGAMANI
N. Krishnaswamy Reddiar and others
Versus
Manickavasagam
Rev.CM.P.No.48 of 1994 in C.R.P.No.148 of 1994
Decided On : 25-11-1994
REVIEW - CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, 1908 - ORDER 47, RULE 1 - ERROR APPARENT ON THE FACE OF THE RECORD - DECREE PASSED IN FAVOUR OF A DEAD PERSON - EXECUTION - LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES OF DECEASED DECREE-HOLDER - IMPLEADING - VALIDITY.
Fact of the Case:
The first review petitioner and his deceased brother filed a suit for recovery of possession and mesne profits. The suit was decreed in their favor. During execution, the legal representatives of the deceased brother sought to come on record, but the defendant resisted. The trial court ordered impleading of the said L.Rs. In a revision petition, the High Court set aside the impugned order. The decree-holders filed a review application.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court held that the order of the learned Judge dated 12.1994 suffers from an error apparent on the face of the record. A decree passed in favor of a dead person is not a nullity and the fact of death, being not brought to the notice of the court when it passed the decree is only an irregularity; and it cannot have the effect of making the decree void ab initio and the decree is executable.
Issues: Whether a decree passed in favor of a dead person is a nullity?
Ratio Decidendi: A decree passed in favor of a dead person is not a nullity. Such a decree can utmost be an irregularity only. A decree awarded without the knowledge of the death of the plaintiff can be executed by his legal representatives.
Final Decision: The Review Application is allowed and the order of this Court dated 12.1994 is set aside. And C.R.P. No.148 of 1994 is dismissed and the order of the executing Court in E.A.No.943 of 1988 is restored.
The court made the following order: the first review petitioner krishnasamy reddiar along with his brother deceased ramaswamy reddiar filed o.s.no.22 of 1982 against the present respondent manickavasagam in the court of district munsif of musiri and obtained a decree ex parte on 12. 1986, ramaswamy reddiar died on 6. 1985 prior to the decree. in e.p.no.236 of 1988 the first review petitioner sought to execute the decree. subsequently he filed e.a.no.943 of 1988 under o.21, rule 16 and sec.151, c.p.c. for impleading present review petitioners 2 and 3 who are wife and daughter of ramaswamy reddiar l.rs. of the said ramaswamy reddiar in the abovesaid e.p. on 111. 1993 learned district munsif allowed the application. The respondent herein challenged the same before this Court in C.R.P.No.148 of 1994. Learned single Judge in his order dated 12. 1994 allowed the C.R.P. and set aside the order in E.A.No.943 of 1988 and dismissed that application for impleading the present petitioners 2 and 3 as L.Rs. of deceased Ramaswamy Reddiar. The order in E.A.No.943 of 1988 was set aside on the sole ground that admittedly at the time of passing of the decree Ramaswamy Reddiar was not alive. The order of the court below is not according to law in impleading his legal representatives subsequently.
2. In this application decree-holder Krishnasamy Reddiar and the legal representatives of Ramaswamy Reddiar seek review of the order of learned single Judge dated 12. 1994. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that while a decree passed against a dead person is ab initio void, a decree passed in favour of a dead person is not a nullity. Such a decree can utmost be an irregularity only. A decree awarded without the knowledge of the death of the plaintiff can be executed by his legal representatives. Besides, in this case there is another plaintiff Krishnasamy Reddiar and even in the absence of legal representative of deceased Ramaswamy Reddiar a decree is a valid one. So, the impugned order of learned Single Judge suffers from an error apparent on the face of the record.
3. In support of his claim learned counsel for the review applicants relied on Abdul Azeez v. Dhanabagiammal, A.I.R. 1983 Mad. 5, wherein a single Judge of this Court has held that it is not open to the executing Court to refuse execution of the decree on the ground that the decree has been passed in favour of a dead person. As the decree passed in ignorance of the death of the plaintiff is a mere irregularity, it cannot have the effect of making the decree as one without jurisdiction. Learned counsel for the respondent has not brought any authority to my notice which has taken a contrary view. I respectfully agree with the abovesaid view of the learned single Judge and hold that a decree passed in favour of a dead person is not a nullity and the fact of death, being not brought to the notice of the court when it passed the decree is only an irregularity; and it cannot have the effect of making the decree void ab initio and the decree is executable. Where the Court proceeded with the case in ignorance of the fact of death of a person and passed a decree, that decree cannot be treated as a mere nullity. It may, no doubt, be a wrong decree, but it will have to be set aside by taking appropriate proceedings like appeal, revision or review. Generally speaking a decree passed in favour of a dead person is not a nullity, though a decree passed against a dead person can be construed as a nullity. Even if there is abatement of the suit, that would not make the decree passed in the suit as one without jurisdiction and the executing Court is not entitled to refuse to execute the decree on the ground that the plaintiff was not alive on the date when the decree was passed in his favour. O.21, Rule 16 read with Sec.146, C.P.C. enable the legal representatives of deceased decree-holder Ramasamy Reddiar to come on record and apply for execution of the decree and the decree may be execu
AI
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.