Trial Court Decree May Be Executed Where First Appellate Decree Was Pronounced in Favour of Deceased Parties

A bench of Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar heard an appeal by the legal heir of the original plaintiffs challenging the refusal of an executing Court to permit execution of a trial Court decree after the first appellate Court had modified that decree. The appeal raised the limited question whether a decree drawn in an appeal in favour of parties who had died before the appeal was heard, without their legal heirs being brought on record, could be treated as a valid decree superseding the trial judgment.

The Court allowed the appeal and held that the first appellate decree was a nullity because both appellants in that appeal had expired before the appeal was heard and their legal heirs were not impleaded. The Court observed that Order XXII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure did not save the proceedings where the parties died prior to the hearing and that a decree pronounced in favour of persons who were no longer alive could not have the force of law. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: “If a party to a proceeding either in the trial Court of any appeal or revision dies and the right to sue survives or a claim has to be answered, the heirs and legal representatives of the deceased party would have to be substituted and failure to do so would result in abatement of proceedings. Now, if the party to a suit dies and the abatement takes place, the suit would abate. If a party to an appeal or revision dies and either the appeal or revision abates, it will have no impact on the judgment, decree or order against which the appeal or revision is preferred. In fact, such judgment, decree or order under appeal or revision would become final.” The Court also noted that “the said adjudication, therefore, amounted to a nullity,” and therefore the decree of the trial Court revived for purposes of execution.

Background

The dispute concerned agricultural land allotted to the appellant’s predecessor, an ex-serviceman, which the Collector was said to have re‑allotted to respondents 3–5. The legal heirs of the ex‑serviceman sued in Regular Civil Suit No.181 of 2001; the trial Court on 14.08.2006 declared the plaintiffs to be owners and decreed possession, holding the subsequent allotment illegal. Defendant Nos.4 and 5 appealed under Section 96 CPC. Defendant No.4 died on 27.10.2006 and defendant No.5 died on 20.09.2010; the first appellate Court heard counsel on 28.09.2010 and partly allowed the appeal on 20.10.2010, modifying the trial decree. The original plaintiffs filed a second appeal which was temporarily treated as abated and later restored; they then withdrew the second appeal. When the appellant sought execution of the 2006 trial decree by filing Regular Darkhast No.22 of 2022, the executing Court refused execution on the ground that the first appellate decree had not abated because it was pronounced before expiry of the ninety‑day period under Article 120 of the Limitation Act for substitution of legal heirs. The High Court dismissed the writ petition challenging that order on 11.03.2024.

The Supreme Court examined Order XXII Rule 6 CPC, the sequence of deaths and hearing dates, and relevant precedents cited in the record (including Rajendra Prasad, Amba Bai, Bibi Rahmani Khatoon and Kiran Singh). It concluded that where both appellants had died before the appeal was heard and their heirs were not brought on record, the adjudication in the appeal was a nullity and could not supersede the trial Court’s decree. The Court set aside the orders of the executing Court and the High Court, restored the execution proceedings and directed the executing Court to decide the matter in accordance with law. The Court noted that the legal heirs of defendant Nos.4 and 5 had not taken steps to be impleaded and had not contested the proceedings before this Court. The civil appeal was allowed and the parties were left to bear their own costs.

Case Details: Case No.: 2025 INSC 1283 (Civil Appeal arising out of SLP(Civil) No. 9947 of 2024) Case Title: Vikram Bhalchandra Ghongade v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Vikram Bhalchandra Ghongade, appellant‑in‑person For the Respondent(s): Mr. Sanjeev Kaushik, Advocate (for Respondent No.3); Mr. Shrirang B. Verma, Advocate (for Respondent Nos.1 & 2)