Any decree passed in favor of or against a dead person is a nullity.

JUDGMENT

1. This second appeal under Section 100 of CPC has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 14.10.2014 passed by District Judge, Anuppur in Civil Appeal No.22-A/2013 arising out of judgment and decree dated 13.08.2023 passed by Civil Judge Class-2 in Civil Suit No.116A/2011.

2. I.A. No.421/2019 has been filed under Order 22 Rule 4 of CPC for substitution of legal representatives of respondent no.2 Bhudha Rathore.

3. According to this application, Buddha Rathore had expired on 06.09.2014. The death certificate is also annexed with as Annexure D/1. Thus, respondent no.2/Bhudha had expired during the pendency of the civil appeal before the First Appellate Court and on the said date the appeal was not reserved for judgment and even the final arguments took place after the death of respondent no.2/Bhudha.

4. Accordingly, the appeal is admitted on the following substantial questions of law:

"Whether the judgment and decree dated 14.10.2014 passed by Appellate Court is a nullity as respondent no.2 Bhudha had already expired and his legal representatives were not brought on record."

5. Heard finally.

6. From the order sheets of the First Appellate Court, it is clear that final arguments of the counsel for the appellant were heard on 18.09.2014 and at the request of respondent no.1, the case was adjourned to 19.09.2014 for hearing of final arguments by the remaining parties and accordingly, on 19.09.2014 the case was reserved for judgment and was fixed for 29.09.2014. On 29.09.2014 the appellant filed an application under Order 17 Rule 1 of CPC on the ground that she wants to file certain documents by filing an application under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC and therefore, sometime may be granted. Accordingly, the application was allowed and the case was fixed for 09.10.2014 for filing of an application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC. On 09.10.2014 the appellant did not file any application under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC and raised certain objections to the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court and accordingly, it was directed that the case be listed for delivery of judgment on 14.10.2014 and the judgment was delivered on 14.10.2014.

7. Under these circumstances, it is clear that the decree was passed by the Appellate Court in favour of a dead person.

8. The Supreme Court in the case of Gurnam Singh (Dead) Through Legal Representatives and others v. Gurbachan Kaur (Dead) by Legal Representatives reported in (2017) 13 SCC 414 has held as under:

13. The short question which arises for consideration in this appeal is whether the impugned order allowing the plaintiff's second appeal is legally sustainable in law? In other words, the question is whether the High Court had the jurisdiction to decide the second appeal when the appellant and the 2 respondents had expired during the pendency of appeal and their legal representatives were not brought on record?

14. In a leading case of this Court in Kiran Singh v. Chaman Paswan [Kiran Singh v. Chaman Paswan, AIR 1954 SC 340], the learned Judge Venkatarama Ayyar, J. speaking for the Bench in his distinctive style of writing laid down the following principle of law being fundamental in nature: (AIR p. 342, para 6)

"6. ... It is a fundamental principle well established that a decree passed by a court without jurisdiction is a nullity, and that its invalidity could be set up whenever and wherever it is sought to be enforced or relied upon, even at the stage of execution and even in collateral proceedings. A defect of jurisdiction, whether it is pecuniary or territorial, or whether it is in respect of the subject-matter of the action, strikes at the very authority of the court to pass any decree, and such a defect cannot be cured even by consent of parties."

15. 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.