Judgment Passed In Favor Of Party Who Died Before Hearing Is Nullity If Legal Heir Wasn't Brought On Record : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Thursday (November 6) held that a judgment rendered in favour of a party who had died before their case was heard is legally inapplicable and has no effect in law. In other words, the appeal abates if the appellant dies before the appeal is heard.A bench of Justice P.S. Narasimha and Justice A.S. Chandurkar heard the matter in which two defendants had filed a first appeal challenging the Trial Court's decree passed in favour of the plaintiff. However, both defendants died before the appeal was taken up for hearing. Despite the absence of any substitution of their legal heirs, the First Appellate Court proceeded to deliver judgment in favour of the deceased defendants, and the same was later affirmed by the High Court.The appellant in the Supreme Court, the legal heir of the deceased defendants, then filed petition to execute the appellate Court's judgment. The plaintiffs' objected to the execution,contending that it was a nullity. However, their objections were rejected.Aggrieved by this outcome, the plaintiff approached the Supreme Court, contending that the First Appellate Court's judgment was a nullity, as it had been rendered in the name of parties who were no longer alive when the appeal was heard. Setting aside the High Court's decision, the judgment authored by Justice Chandurkar observed: “the fact remains that prior to the appeal being heard and thereafter decided, both the appellants who had filed the said appeal were no more. The judgment pronounced in the first appeal on 20.10.2010 was, thus, in favour of the parties who were no more alive. The said adjudication, therefore, amounted to a nullity and the same did not have the force of law.” The Court clarified that although Order XXII Rule 6 CPC validates a judgment if a party dies after the hearing but before judgment is pronounced, the provision would be inapplicable when the party dies before the hearing of its appeal, making the entire appellate process a nullity. “During pendency of that appeal, the defendant No.4 expired on 27.10.2006, while the defendant No.5 expired on 20.09.2010. The record indicates that the appeal was heard on 28.09.2010. As per the provisions of Order XXII Rule 6 of the Code, if a party expires between the conclusion of hearing and pronouncement of the judgment, the same does not result in abatement of such proceedings and the judgment on being pronounced, would have the same force and effect as if it had been pronounced before the death of such party took place. In view of the fact that the defendant Nos.4 and 5 had died prior to the appeal being heard on 28.09.2010, it is evident that the proceedings in the said appeal are not saved by the provisions of Order XXII Rule 6 of the Code. In effect, the appeal was decided notwithstanding the death of both the appellants, who had preferred the appeal.”, the Court observed.Since legal heirs were not brought on record after the death of the parties, the appellate judgment is a nullity. Hence, only the decree of the trial court can be executed."In the case in hand, the judgment in favour of the deceased appellants would be a nullity in the absence of the legal heirs being brought on record and the judgment of the trial Court would be the one that would govern the rights of the parties. Hence, the decree passed by the trial Court would revive for being executed."Reference was made to the judgments in Rajendra Prasad and another vs. Khirodhar Mahto and others Civil Appeal No. 2275 of 1994 and Amba Bai and others vs. Gopal and Others 2001 INSC 263, Bibi Rahmani Khatoon and others vs. Harkoo Gope and others 1981 INSC 100.Accordingly, the appeal was allowed. Cause Title: VIKRAM BHALCHANDRA GHONGADE VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1067Click here to read/download the judgmentAppearance: For Petitioner(s) : Petitioner-in-person For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shrirang B. Varma, Adv. Mr. Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Adv. Mr. Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, AOR Mr. Sanjeev Kaushik, Adv. (Virtual) Mr. Simranjeet Singh Rekhi, Adv. Ms. Jyotika, Adv. Ms. Astha Sharma, AOR

Judgment Passed In Favor Of Party Who Died Before Hearing Is Nullity If Legal Heir Wasn't Brought On Record : Supreme Court

Yash Mittal

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Judgment Passed In Favor Of Party Who Died Before Hearing Is Nullity If Legal Heir Wasn't Brought On Record : Supreme Court

Yash Mittal

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers