A decree passed in favor of a deceased individual is a nullity unless legal representatives are substituted timely, reflecting the necessity of following procedural requirements under the Code.

JUDGMENT :

G. S. Ahluwalia, J.

This second appeal under Section 100 of CPC has been filed against judgment and decree dated 03.03.2007 passed by First Additional District Judge, Ashoknagar in Civil Appeal No.10A/2006, by which judgment and decree dated 01.03.2006 passed by Civil Judge, Class-I, Ashoknagar in Civil Suit No. 16A/2004 has been reversed.

2. I.A. No. 314/2017 has been filed under Order 22 Rule 4 CPC for substitution of legal representatives of respondent No. 1 - Nathan Singh.

3. I.A. No. 316/2017 has been filed for deleting the names of respondents Nos. 4 and 6.

I.A. No. 316/2017

4. At the risk and cost of appellant, names of respondents Nos. 4 and 6 are permitted to be deleted from the array of cause-title.

I.A. No. 314/2017

5. In this application, date of death of Nathan Singh is not mentioned.

6. Second Appeal No. 437/2007 has been filed by the legal representatives of Nathan Singh. That appeal was filed on 18.06.2007. Thus, it is clear that Nathan Singh must have expired prior to 18.06.2007.

7. Accordingly, this Court has gone through the record of Civil Appeal No. 10A/2006. Civil Appeal No. 10A/2006 was decided by judgment and decree dated 03.03.2007. From the record of this appeal, it appears that on 04.07.2006, an application under Order 22 Rule 3 CPC was filed pointing out that Nathan Singh has expired on 18.06.2006. Unfortunately, said application remained pending, and without deciding the application for taking legal representatives of deceased Nathan Singh, who was appellant before the Appellate Court, on record, appeal was decided on 03.03.2007.

8. Thus, it is clear that although Nathan Singh had expired, but the appeal was decided and it was partially allowed in favour of a dead person.

9. Now, the question for consideration is that what will be the effect of the lapse which took place before the Appellate Court?

10. 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.

16. It is not in dispute that the appell