A decree passed against a deceased person is a nullity and cannot be executed.

7.Sriram Sundar (Petitioners 2 to 7 are brought on record as LRs of the deceased sole Petitioner vide order dated

08.12.2025)

Petitioners Vs

1.Prabakaran Ambujammal (deceased)

Pechimuthu Konar (deceased)

Sivaraj (deceased)

2.Packirisamy 3.Velmurugan Respondent(s)

PRAYER: This Review Petition is filed under Section 114 & 154 of CPC, to review the order dated 20.06.2007 wherein above, C.R.P. NPD. No.1647 of

2006.

For Petitioner : Mr.J.Nandagopal For Respondents : Mr.N.Manoharan for R1 Died- R2 No Appearance for R3

ORDER

This Application has been filed to review the order passed in CRP.

No.1647 of 2006 on 20.06.2007.

2. I have heard Mr.J.Nandagopal learned counsel for the review Applicant and Mr.N.Manoharan, learned counsel for the first respondent.

3. Mr.J.Nandagopal, learned counsel for the petitioner would state that the first respondent filed a suit in O.S. No.182 of 1985, against three defendants viz., Ambujathammal, N.Sivaraj and Pakkiriswamy. The Trial Court dismissed the suit and the findings of the Trial Court were confirmed in the First Appeal in A.S. No.173 of 1991, by judgment and decree dated 21.07.1991. However, in S.A. No.147 of 1993, the concurrent findings of the Court below were set aside and a decree was passed granting a mandatory injunction for removal of obstructions as well as declaration of title and right of the plaintiffs/decree holders.

4. It is the submission of Mr.J.Nandagopal, learned counsel for the petitioner that the first respondent, Ambujathammal was not served and in fact, she had died even prior to the Second Appeal being allowed on 18.03.2004 and therefore, the decree itself was a nullity, having been passed against a dead person. He would therefore state that when the said contention was taken in the Section 47 Application, in the Execution Proceedings, the Executing Court erroneously dismissed the Section 47 Application. As against the same, one of the legal representatives of the deceased first defendant, Ambujathammal filed a revision petition. The said revision was disposed of by the very same Judge who allowed the Second Appeal, by order dated 20.06.2007, stating that in the Second Appeal, the notices were taken to add the legal representatives of the deceased first defendant and despite service, they had not appeared and therefore, there was no infirmity in the judgment passed in the Second Appeal and when the very same contentions were agitated before the Executing Court, the same did not merit any consideration.

5. It is the categorical submission of Mr.J.Nandagopal, learned counsel for the petitioner that the order in the Civil Revision Petition suffers from an error apparent on the face of the record, since no application was taken out to implead the legal representatives of the deceased Ambujathammal, pending the Second Appeal and therefore, the order passed in the revision has to be necessarily reviewed under Order 47 of CPC. The learned counsel has relied on the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Amba Bai Vs. Gopal , reported in 2001 Lawsuit (SC) 840 and Green View Tea and Industries Vs. Collector, Golaghat, Assam and Another , reported in (2004) 4 SCC 122 also Selvaganesan Vs. Kalaiselvi and another, in CRP. No.3005 of 2012, dated 30.04.2019, where it has been consistently held by the Courts that, if a decree his passed against a dead person, then it is a nullity and it would be in-executable.

6. Per contra, Mr.N.Manoharan, learned counsel for the first respondent/plaintiff would state that even assuming there is an error in the order passed in the revision petition, there would be no useful purpose being served in reviewing the said order, since the Second Appeal judgment has become final and no Review Application has been filed to review the judgment in the Second Appeal. He would further state tha