In a landmark pronouncement delivered on November 6, 2025, the Supreme Court of India clarified the legal effect of decrees passed in proceedings tainted by jurisdictional defects or where the parties in whose favour such decrees were made were no longer alive at the time of adjudication. The Court held that such decrees are nullities in the eyes of the law, incapable of execution, and their invalidity may be raised at any stage — even in execution proceedings.
The decision, rendered in Vikram Bhalchandra Ghongade v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. (2025 INSC 1283), revisits foundational procedural principles under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) and the Limitation Act, 1963, reaffirming the Court’s enduring commitment to substantive justice over procedural technicalities.
Factual Background
The dispute arose from an allotment of agricultural land in Village Takarkheda, District Wardha, Maharashtra. The land had originally been allotted to Mr Arjunrao Thakre, an ex-serviceman. Upon his death, his legal heirs (the plaintiffs) discovered that the same parcel of land had been re-allotted to defendants Nos. 3 to 5 by the local Collector.
Aggrieved, the legal heirs filed Regular Civil Suit No. 181 of 2001 before the trial court seeking:
- A declaration that the re-allotment was illegal, and
- Possession of the land in their favour as lawful successors of the original allottee.
On 14 August 2006, the trial court decreed the suit, holding the re-allotment in favour of the defendants to be illegal and declaring the plaintiffs as rightful owners entitled to possession.
The Appellate Chain and Procedural Complications
The decree was challenged in appeal by defendants Nos. 4 and 5 under Section 96 CPC. During the pendency of the appeal:
- Defendant No. 4 died on 27 October 2006, and
- Defendant No. 5 died on 20 September 2010.
Despite these deaths, no legal heirs were substituted, and the appeal was heard on 28 September 2010 — after both appellants had already died. The appellate court modified the trial decree on 20 October 2010, partly reducing the plaintiffs’ entitlement.
The plaintiffs later filed a second appeal under Section 100 CPC, which was initially dismissed as abated but later restored by the High Court. Eventually, they withdrew it, asserting that since the first appeal itself had abated on account of the appellants’ deaths, the trial court’s decree stood revived and was enforceable.
In 2022, the appellant (legal heir of the plaintiffs) filed Regular Darkhast No. 22 of 2022 to execute the original decree. The executing court, however, dismissed the execution petition, reasoning that:
- The decree of the trial court had merged into that of the appellate court, and
- The appeal could not be treated as abated since the first appellate judgment was delivered within ninety days of the last appellant’s death.
This order was affirmed by the Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court on 11 March 2024, prompting the appeal before the Supreme Court.
Issues Before the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court was called upon to decide:
- Whether the decree passed by the first appellate court, rendered after the death of both appellants, was a nullity.
- Whether such a null decree could preclude the execution of the trial court’s decree.
- Whether the executing court was justified in refusing execution on the ground of merger.
Court’s Reasoning
1. Nullity of a Decree Passed in Favour of Dead Persons
Justice Atul S. Chandurkar, writing for the Bench (also comprising Justice P.S. Narasimha), emphasised that a decree passed in favour of deceased persons is a nullity since the court lacks jurisdiction to pronounce a judgment in their favour. The Court observed that:
“When the appeal was decided, both the appellants had expired and their legal heirs had not been brought on record. The adjudication by the first appellate court was, therefore, a nullity and could not have the force of law.”
The Bench underscored that Order XXII Rule 6 CPC protects judgments where a party dies after the conclusion of the hearing but before the pronouncement. However, in the present case, both defendants had died before the hearing commenced; therefore, the saving clause of Rule 6 was inapplicable.
2. Limitation Period Does Not Validate a Void Proceeding
The executing court had reasoned that the appeal could not have abated since the decree was pronounced within ninety days of the death of one appellant (as per Article 120, Limitation Act, 1963). The Supreme Court rejected this logic, holding that the limitation period for substitution cannot breathe life into a non-existent proceeding. Once the appellants died before the hearing, the court ceased to have jurisdiction to proceed further in their absence.
Thus, even though the period for substitution had not expired, the jurisdictional defect was incurable, rendering the decree void ab initio.
3. Applicability of the Doctrine of Merger
Ordinarily, once an appellate decree is passed, the trial court’s decree merges into it. However, the Court clarified that the doctrine of merger presupposes a valid appellate decree. When the appellate decree itself is void, there can be no merger:
“Since the decree of the first appellate court was a nullity, the plaintiffs were entitled to execute the decree passed by the trial court.”
The Court thus held that the decree of the trial court revived automatically upon the invalidation of the appellate decree.
4. Jurisdictional Nullity Can Be Raised at Any Stage
Reiterating the principle laid down in Kiran Singh v. Chaman Paswan (1954 SCR 117), the Court observed:
“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.”
Therefore, the executing court erred in dismissing the petition on the assumption that it lacked the power to question the validity of the appellate decree.
5. Reliance on Precedents
The judgment draws heavily from prior decisions reaffirming the concept of void decrees:
- Rajendra Prasad v. Khirodhar Mahto (Civil Appeal No. 2275 of 1994): Held that a decree passed in favour of dead persons without substitution of heirs is a jurisdictional nullity.
- Amba Bai v. Gopal (2001 INSC 263): Reiterated that appeals decided without impleading legal representatives of deceased appellants are void.
- Bibi Rahmani Khatoon v. Harkoo Gope (1981 INSC 100): Clarified that abatement extinguishes the proceeding but not the original decree, which then becomes final and executable.
By harmonising these precedents, the Supreme Court reaffirmed that procedural missteps affecting jurisdiction strike at the root of the decree — unlike mere irregularities that can be waived or cured.
Conceptual Analysis
A. Meaning of a “Nullity”
A nullity implies a complete absence of legal force from inception. It is distinguishable from a voidable act, which remains effective until set aside. A decree may be treated as a nullity when:
- The court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction.
- The court lacks personal jurisdiction over the parties.
- Essential procedural conditions, such as the substitution of legal heirs after death, are ignored, rendering the adjudication inoperative.
In Ghongade, the appellate court’s decree was rendered void because the jurisdictional foundation — the existence of living appellants — was missing.
B. Jurisdictional Defects v. Procedural Irregularities
The decision also draws a line between jurisdictional defects and procedural irregularities. The former strikes at the court’s competence to adjudicate, while the latter merely affects the correctness of procedure. For instance:
- Failure to substitute legal representatives of a deceased party is jurisdictional if it results in adjudication for or against a non-existent person.
- Delay in filing substitution applications is procedural, capable of condonation.
Thus, while procedural defects may render a decree irregular, jurisdictional defects make it a legal nullity.
C. Doctrine of Abatement and Its Effect
Under Order XXII CPC, proceedings abate when a party dies and their legal heirs are not substituted within time. However, abatement is not automatic; it takes effect upon lapse of the limitation period. Yet, in the instant case, the very hearing occurred post-death, invalidating the entire process irrespective of limitation.
This interpretation upholds the principle that a court cannot adjudicate upon the rights of dead persons — a corollary to the maxim actus curiae neminem gravabit (an act of the court shall prejudice no one).
D. Executing Court’s Powers
Traditionally, an executing court cannot “go behind the decree.” However, when the decree itself is a nullity, this restriction does not apply. The Supreme Court reaffirmed that the executing court is duty-bound to refuse execution of void decrees. Conversely, it must execute valid decrees even if later orders purport to supersede them unlawfully.
The Court’s Final Directions
Setting aside the orders of both the executing court (June 21, 2023) and the High Court (March 11, 2024), the Supreme Court restored the execution proceedings, allowing the appellant to execute the 2006 trial court decree.
The Court also noted that, despite due notice, the legal heirs of defendants Nos. 4 and 5 had not appeared before any forum, further reinforcing the conclusion that the appellate decree could not survive.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s decision in Vikram Bhalchandra Ghongade v. State of Maharashtra (2025 INSC 1283) is a compelling reaffirmation of the principle that jurisdictional legitimacy is the lifeblood of judicial authority. Any decree pronounced in disregard of essential conditions — such as the existence of living parties — is void and unenforceable.
By restoring the trial court’s decree and recognising the appellate decree as a jurisdictional nullity, the Court safeguarded both procedural propriety and substantive justice. It further empowered executing courts to look beyond the surface of decrees to ensure that only lawful and living rights are enforced.
This judgment will serve as a guiding precedent for future cases involving abatement, substitution, and execution, reminding litigants and courts alike that justice without jurisdiction is no justice at all.
Important Link
Law Library: Notes and Study Material for LLB, LLM, Judiciary, and Entrance Exams