Can a decree passed by an appellate court in favour of deceased appellants, without substitution of their legal heirs before hearing, override and extinguish the original trial decree?

 

Summary

Category Data
Court Supreme Court of India
Case Number C.A. No.-013409-013409 – 2025
Diary Number 14545/2024
Judge Name HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ATUL S. CHANDURKAR
Bench HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA; HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ATUL S. CHANDURKAR
Precedent Value Binding authority on all courts
Overrules / Affirms Affirms existing precedents on abatement and substitution
Type of Law Civil Procedure Code (abatement, execution of decrees)
Questions of Law Does an appellate decree passed in favour of appellants who died before the hearing and whose heirs were not substituted remain valid and operate to modify the trial decree?
Ratio Decidendi
  1. Where appellants die before the hearing of an appeal and no legal heirs are brought on record within limitation, the appellate decree is a nullity.
  2. Order XXII Rule 6 CPC applies only if death occurs after conclusion of hearing and before judgment.
  3. A null appellate decree cannot extinguish or modify the original trial decree.
  4. The valid trial decree revives and is executable.
Judgments Relied Upon
  • Rajendra Prasad & Anr. v. Khirodhar Mahto & Ors. (1994)
  • Amba Bai & Ors. v. Gopal & Ors. (2001)
  • Bibi Rahmani Khatoon & Ors. v. Harkoo Gope & Ors. (1981)
  • Kiran Singh & Ors. v. Chaman Paswan & Ors. (1954)
Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court
  • Order XXII Rule 6, CPC (saving provision applies only if death after hearing)
  • Article 120, Limitation Act (90-day period for substitution)
  • Principle that decree in favour of deceased without substitution is void
  • Execution courts must enforce only valid decrees
Facts as Summarised by the Court The original plaintiffs obtained a 2006 trial decree declaring their title to allotted agricultural land. Defendant Nos. 4 & 5 appealed under Section 96 CPC but died before the appeal hearing. The first appellate court heard the appeal on 28.09.2010 and modified the trial decree on 20.10.2010 without substitution. The appellant sought execution of the 2006 decree; the executing court and High Court refused, treating the appellate decree as valid.

Practical Impact

Category Impact
Binding On All trial, appellate and executing courts in India
Follows
  • Rajendra Prasad v. Khirodhar Mahto
  • Amba Bai v. Gopal
  • Bibi Rahmani Khatoon v. Harkoo Gope
  • Kiran Singh v. Chaman Paswan

What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note

  • Clarifies that an appellate decree in favour of deceased appellants is void if heirs are not substituted before hearing.
  • Confirms Order XXII Rule 6 CPC does not save appeals where death occurs prior to hearing.
  • Reaffirms that the valid trial court decree revives for execution when the appellate decree is null.
  • Execution courts can set aside a null appellate decree at the execution stage.
  • Counsel should ensure timely substitution of heirs and monitor death of parties during pendency of appeals.

Summary of Legal Reasoning

  1. Death Before Hearing

    • Both defendant-appellants died prior to the appeal hearing on 28.09.2010.
    • Order XXII Rule 6 CPC saves proceedings only if death occurs after the conclusion of hearing and before judgment.
  2. Nullity of Appellate Decree

    • An appeal decided in favour of deceased appellants without substitution is void (Rajendra Prasad; Amba Bai; Bibi Rahmani Khatoon).
  3. Revival of Trial Decree

    • A null appellate decree cannot extinguish or modify the original trial decree.
    • The valid trial decree of 14.08.2006 revives for execution (Kiran Singh).
  4. Execution Proceedings

    • Execution courts must enforce only valid decrees and may set aside null decrees at the execution stage.

Arguments by the Parties

Petitioner (Appellant-in-person)

  • Defendant Nos. 4 & 5 died before 28.09.2010; legal heirs were not substituted.
  • The appellate decree is a nullity; only the trial decree survives.
  • Relied on Order XXII Rules 2(2) & 6 CPC.

Respondents

  • Respondent No. 3 argued the appeal was decided before the 90-day substitution period lapsed and thus valid.
  • Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 supported the executing court’s view that the first appellate decree superseded the trial decree.

Factual Background

The legal heirs of Mr. Arjunrao Thakre sued in 2001 to challenge a subsequent land allotment. The trial court in 2006 declared their title and granted possession of the land. Defendant Nos. 4 & 5 appealed; both died before the appeal hearing in September 2010 and no heirs were impleaded. The first appellate court heard and modified the decree in October 2010. In 2022, the appellant sought to execute the 2006 decree; the executing court and High Court dismissed on the basis that the appellate decree was valid.

Statutory Analysis

  • Order XXII, Rules 2(2) & 6 CPC

    • Rule 6 saves proceedings only if death occurs after hearing.
    • Where death precedes hearing, appeal abates if substitution is not effected within 90 days.
  • Article 120, Limitation Act, 1963

    • Prescribes a 90-day period to bring legal heirs on record after the death of a party.

Alert Indicators

  • ✔ Precedent Followed

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Recent Comments

No comments to show.