INTRODUCTION
This article analyses the significant Judgment delivered by the Supreme Court of India in Vikram Bhalchandra Ghongade vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. (2025 INSC 1283). The Judgment was passed by a Coram consisting of Justices Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Atul S. Chandurkar. The case primarily addresses the legal validity of a decree passed by an appellate court when the appealing parties have died before the hearing, and their legal heirs were not brought on record, rendering the subsequent judgment a nullity.
BRIEF FACTS
The legal dispute traces back to a Suit filed by the legal heirs of Mr. Arjunrao Thakre, who was allotted agricultural land as an Ex-Army Serviceman. The suit challenged the re-allotment of the land to Defendant Nos. 3 to 5.
Trial Court Decree: The Trial Court, on August 14, 2006, decreed the suit, declaring the allotment to Defendant Nos. 3 to 5 illegal and holding the plaintiffs’ predecessors (Mr. Arjunrao Thakre’s legal heirs) as the rightful owners, thus passing a decree for possession in their favor.
First Appeal and Deaths: Defendant Nos. 4 and 5 filed an appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (“the Code”). During the appeal’s pendency, Defendant No. 4 died on October 27, 2006 and Defendant No. 5 died on September 20, 2010.
Appellate Court Judgment: Despite the death of both appellants (Defendant Nos. 4 and 5), the fact was not brought to the first appellate court’s notice. The court heard counsel on September 28, 2010, and partly allowed the appeal on October 20, 2010, modifying the trial court’s decree.
Execution and High Court: The appellant (legal heir of original plaintiffs) sought to execute the trial court’s decree (of 2006). The executing court, and subsequently the High Court, dismissed the execution proceedings. The executing court reasoned that since the appeal was decided before the 90-day limitation period for bringing the legal heirs of Defendant No. 5 on record had expired, the appeal had not abated, and the trial court’s decree had merged with the first appellate court’s modified decree.
ISSUES OF LAW
The primary issue before the Supreme Court was:
Whether the decree passed by the first appellate court was a nullity when the appellants (Defendant Nos. 4 and 5) had expired prior to the appeal being heard, and their legal heirs had not been brought on record.
Consequently, whether the appellant was entitled to execute the original decree passed by the trial court.
ANALYSIS OF THE JUDGMENT
The Supreme Court rejected the reasoning of the executing court and the High Court, holding that the first appellate court’s decree was a nullity.
Applicability of Order XXII Rule 6: The court noted that the appeal was heard on September 28, 2010, which was after the death of both Defendant Nos. 4 (October 27, 2006) and 5 (September 20, 2010). The provisions of Order XXII Rule 6 of the Code, which save proceedings from abatement if a party dies between the conclusion of the hearing and the pronouncement of judgment, were not applicable because the deaths occurred prior to the hearing.
Judgment in Favour of Dead Persons: The fact that the first appeal was decided on October 20, 2010, before the 90-day abatement period from Defendant No. 5’s death expired, did not save the proceedings. The core issue was that the judgment was pronounced in favor of parties who were no longer alive. The court asserted that a judgment pronounced in favor of deceased parties, who expired before the appeal was heard and decided, is a nullity and does not have the force of law.
Revival of Trial Court Decree: Citing previous judgments, the Court emphasized that if a party to an appeal dies and the appeal abates (or, as here, the judgment is a nullity), it has no impact on the original judgment, decree, or order against which the appeal was preferred; that original decree becomes final. Since the appellate decree was a nullity, the decree passed by the trial court on August 14, 2006, was the only decree that could be enforced.
Nullity Can be Set Up in Execution: The Court also reaffirmed the established principle that if a decree is a nullity, its invalidity can be set up whenever and wherever it is sought to be enforced, even at the stage of execution.
CONCLUSION
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the orders of the executing court and the High Court. The execution proceedings filed by the appellant were restored, confirming that the appellant is entitled to execute the original decree passed by the trial court.
The Judgment clarifies a crucial aspect of procedural law under Order XXII of the Code: a judicial pronouncement in an appeal brought by a party who is already deceased, and whose legal heirs have not been substituted before the hearing, is fundamentally void. The original trial court decree, therefore, revives as the only valid decree governing the rights of the parties. This ruling ensures that justice is not defeated by a legally infirm appellate decree passed against dead persons.
Sarthak Kalra, Advocate
Senior Associate
The Indian Lawyer & Allied Services
Please log onto our YouTube channel, The Indian Lawyer Legal Tips, to learn about various aspects of the law. Our latest Video titled “Rights of Husband in False Matrimonial Cases | 498A Misuse | 2025 Judgments Explained” can be viewed at the Link below: