Rights out of Holding Of Non-Hereditary Office, Dies With Person's Death, Not Transferable Or Heritable: Delhi High Court

A single bench of Delhi High Court comprising of Justice Dharmesh Sharmawhile deciding a civil revision petition in the case of Revd. John H. Caleb v. Diocese of Delhi-CNI and Ors, has held that a personal right of action, arising due to holding of a non-hereditary office, dies with the death of the person concerned and not transferable or heritable.Background And Facts Of The CaseReverend John H. Caleb, (original plaintiff), was transferred to Green Park Free Church on May 12, 1997, to serve as a resident priest and was provided accommodation in the church parsonage. He retired in March 2001 but continued to serve and reside on an ad-hoc basis until May 2018. On May 14, 2018, Reverend Caleb was informed that his services were no longer required, and he was asked to vacate the church premises to make way for a new priest. Despite requests for alternative accommodation, he was instructed to vacate by January 2019. Reverend Caleb filed a suit on October 27, 2018, seeking a permanent injunction against eviction and a declaration that Green Park Free Church is independent of the Diocese of Delhi-CNI's control. During the suit's pendency, Reverend Caleb's son, Deepak Martin Caleb (Respondent) filed an application to be substituted as the plaintiff after Reverend Caleb passed away on August 30, 2021. The Trial Court granted this request on January 27, 2022 applying Order XXII Rule 3 of the CPC. Aggrieved by the same, Diocese of Delhi (Petitioner) challenged the Trial Court's order under this revision petition.The petitioner argued that the suit should abate upon Reverend Caleb's death, as the right to sue does not survive by stating the established proposition of law - “A personal action dies with the death of the person on the maxim action personalis moritur cum persona”. The petitioner also referred to Section 38 of the Specific Relief Act, 1964 and emphasised on the fact that for an injunctive relief, one needs to necessarily show how they are entitled to that right and how the respondent herein has the right to be substituted in the suit in place of the deceased plaintiff. They contended that the premises were only to be occupied by an acting priest, and since the suit was personal to Reverend Caleb, it could not be continued by his son.On the other hand the respondent maintained that the right to sue survives, emphasizing that his possession of the property should be protected against unlawful dispossession.Findings of the CourtThe core issue was whether the right to sue survived after the death of the plaintiff. The court primarily relied on Puran Singh v. State of Punjab where the Supreme Court stated “If the right is held to be a personal right which is extinguished with the death of the person concerned and does not devolve on the legal representatives or successors, then it is an end of the suit.”Specifically, in this case, the deceased plaintiff's appointment and rights as a religious priest, along with the incidental benefit of accommodation provided to facilitate his duties, were personal and non-transferable. The court observed that respondent i.e., the son of the deceased has neither any right nor entitled to become religious priest of the church and he cannot challenge the authority of the petitioner to manage the affairs of the Church. Consequently, such personal rights and actions extinguish upon the individual's death and do not devolve upon their legal representatives or heirs, leading to the abatement of the suit. The court concluded that the right to sue did not survive as the legal rights and claims were personal to the deceased plaintiff and did not transfer to his legal heirs. As a result, the suit abated upon the plaintiff's death and could not be continued by his son.With the aforesaid observation, the court allowed the revision petition and set aside the order of the trial court allowing application of the respondent under Order XXII Rule 3 of the CPC.Case No. : C.R.P. 46/2022 and CM APPL. 16754/2022 (Stay)Case Name: Revd. John H. Caleb v. Diocese of Delhi-CNI and Ors.Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 668Counsel for the Petitioner: Veronica Francis, Mr. Arun Francis and George Francis, Advs.Counsel for the Respondent: Raghav Awasthi and Mukesh Sharma, Advs.Click Here To Read/Download Order

Rights out of Holding Of Non-Hereditary Office, Dies With Person's Death, Not Transferable Or Heritable: Delhi High Court

Namdev Singh

Tags