Supreme Court Clarifies That Decree Passed in Favour of Deceased Appellants is a Nullity.


06 November 2025 Civil Appeals >> Civil & Consumer Law  

In a significant ruling of Vikram Bhalchandra Ghongade v/s The State of Maharashtra & Others, the Supreme Court has once again ruled that a decree granted by the appellate court in favour of the appellants who had already died when their appeal was heard stands null and void in the eye of law. The judgment, arising from a long-drawn land dispute from Wardha, Maharashtra, reinforces the principle that courts cannot pronounce judgments in favour of persons no longer before them, as such decrees would be void ab initio.

The case was brought before the Supreme Court by the legal heir of an ex-serviceman, Mr. Arjunrao Thakre, who had originally been allotted agricultural land in Takarkheda village. On his death, the land had been re-allotted to third parties (defendants 3 to 5) by the Collector of Wardha. The heirs of Thakre approached the court through a civil suit against the re-allotment, and the trial court, by its decree dated 14 August 2006, had held the re-allotment to be illegal and restored possession rights to the plaintiffs.

 

 

Aggrieved, defendants 4 and 5 filed a first appeal under Section 96 of the Civil Procedure Code. During the pendency of that appeal, both appellants died—defendant 4 in 2006 and defendant 5 in 2010. However, their deaths were never brought to the court’s notice. The first appellate court, unaware of their demise, heard arguments and partly modified the trial court’s decree in October 2010.

The plaintiffs had taken the matter in second appeal to the High Court, which was at one point in time dismissed as abated. The High Court later restored it, but the plaintiffs ultimately withdrew the second appeal, arguing that the first appeal itself had by then abated upon the death of the appellants. Thereafter, they moved for execution of the original decree passed by the trial court. When the executing court and later the High Court rejected their contention, holding that the decree of the first appellate court had superseded the decree of the trial court, the matter came up to the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court, allowing the appeal, held that when both the appellants had died before the hearing of the appeal, the decree pronounced thereafter could not have any legal effect. It referred to Order XXII, Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Code, which preserved the proceedings only in case of a party dying after the hearing but before judgment. That safeguard, however, was unavailable in this case since the deaths occurred prior to the hearing itself.

The Bench reasoned that a decree passed in favor of non-existent persons is a nullity and cannot extinguish the enforceability of the trial court’s decree. Citing past authorities, including Bibi Rahmani Khatoon v. Harkoo Gope and Kiran Singh v. Chaman Paswan, the Court has reaffirmed that a decree without jurisdiction or so passed in such invalid circumstances can be challenged even at the stage of execution.

The Supreme Court thus set aside the orders passed by the executing court and the High Court and remitted the execution petition for fresh consideration. It also clarified that as the first appellate decree was void, the decree of the trial court revived and was fully executable. 

The decision is a timely reminder to the litigants and lawyers about the procedural requirement of bringing on record the legal representatives of the deceased parties. More importantly, it underscores that the procedural anomalies that allow the passing of judgments against deceased litigants cannot be cured post facto. The insistence of the Court in treating such decrees as nullities preserves the sanctity of the judicial process so as to ensure no adjudication without living and represented parties.


Section 96., Code of Civil Procedure - 1908  

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908