The Nullity of Decrees Passed Against Deceased Persons: A Legal Analysis

 

The Nullity of Decrees Passed Against Deceased Persons: A Legal Analysis
By Abhishek Jat, Advocate

In a landmark judgment delivered in 2011, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India revisited a fundamental legal principle that has far-reaching implications in civil litigation: the effect of a decree passed against a deceased person. The Court, in no uncertain terms, reaffirmed the well-settled legal doctrine that a decree pronounced against a deceased individual is a nullity and, therefore, devoid of any legal force. This principle, rooted in the bedrock of jurisdictional competence, has been consistently upheld by the judiciary and serves as a critical safeguard against procedural irregularities in civil proceedings.

The Case in Perspective

The case in question, Gurnam Singh (D) Thr. Lrs. & Ors. vs. Gurbachan Kaur (D) By Lrs. & Ors., arose from a dispute over the specific performance of a contract related to the sale of agricultural land. The plaintiff, Gurbachan Kaur, had entered into a contract with Surjan Singh (defendant No. 1) for the purchase of the suit land. However, before the execution of the sale deed, Surjan Singh sold the land to third parties, leading to a legal battle that spanned several decades.

The Trial Court and the First Appellate Court had dismissed the plaintiff’s claim for specific performance, awarding only a monetary decree. However, the High Court, in its second appeal, reversed the lower courts’ decisions and decreed specific performance in favor of the plaintiff. The legal representatives of the deceased defendants challenged this decision before the Supreme Court, raising a critical procedural issue: whether the High Court had the jurisdiction to pass a decree when the appellant and two respondents had died during the pendency of the appeal, and their legal representatives were not brought on record.

The Core Legal Issue

The central question before the Supreme Court was whether the High Court’s judgment, passed in favor of and against deceased persons, was legally sustainable. The Court, relying on the seminal case of Kiran Singh & Others vs. Chaman Paswan & Others (AIR 1954 SC 340), held that a decree passed by a court without jurisdiction is a nullity. This principle is fundamental and applies irrespective of whether the jurisdictional defect is pecuniary, territorial, or related to the subject matter of the action.

Key Legal Principles Reaffirmed

1. Lack of Jurisdiction: The Court emphasized that a decree rendered against a deceased individual is inherently void because it is passed without jurisdiction. Jurisdiction is the cornerstone of judicial authority, and any order or decree issued without it is legally unenforceable. The invalidity of such a decree can be challenged at any stage, including during execution or even in collateral proceedings.
2. Fatal Jurisdictional Defect: A defect in jurisdiction strikes at the very root of the court’s authority to adjudicate the matter. Such a defect is incurable and cannot be remedied, even with the consent of the parties. The Court reiterated that a decree passed for or against a dead person is a nullity, as it lacks the essential jurisdictional foundation required for its validity.

Abatement of Appeals

The Court also addressed the procedural aspect of abatement under Order 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. It held that if a party to an appeal dies and no application is made to bring their legal representatives on record within 90 days, the appeal abates automatically. In the present case, the appellant and two respondents had died during the pendency of the second appeal, and no steps were taken to substitute their legal representatives. Consequently, the appeal stood abated, and the High Court ceased to have jurisdiction to decide the matter.

Revival of Abated Appeals

The Court clarified that an abated appeal could only be revived if the legal representatives of the deceased parties filed an application for substitution, sought condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, and applied for setting aside the abatement under Order 22 Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Since no such applications were filed in this case, the High Court’s decision was rendered without jurisdiction and was, therefore, a nullity.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Gurnam Singh vs. Gurbachan Kaur serves as a stark reminder of the importance of adhering to procedural requirements in civil litigation. The principle that a decree passed against a deceased person is a nullity underscores the necessity of ensuring that all parties to a legal proceeding are alive and properly represented. Failure to comply with these procedural mandates can result in the dismissal of appeals and the invalidation of decrees, as demonstrated in this case.

This judgment highlights the critical need to promptly address issues related to the death of parties during litigation. It also reinforces the judiciary’s commitment to upholding procedural integrity and ensuring that justice is administered within the bounds of the law.