The Supreme Court of India has once again reaffirmed a fundamental procedural tenet of civil law—a decree passed in favour of a dead person is a nullity in the eyes of the law. In the recent case of Vikram Bhalchandra Ghongade v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. (2025 INSC 1283), A two-judge bench comprising Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar clarified that if an appeal is decided after the death of the appellants and without substitution of their legal heirs, such adjudication has no legal sanctity.
The ruling reinforces the doctrine that judicial orders rendered in the absence of a living litigant whose rights are in question cannot be sustained, emphasising the indispensable role of procedural compliance under Order XXII of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC).
Factual Background
The dispute arose from the allotment of agricultural land located in Survey Nos. 106 and 107/1 at Village Takarkheda, Taluka Arvi, District Wardha, Maharashtra. The original allottee, Mr. Arjunrao Thakre, an ex-serviceman, was granted the said land. After his demise, the Collector of Wardha re-allotted the property to defendants Nos. 3 to 5.
Challenging this re-allotment, the legal heirs of late Arjunrao Thakre filed Regular Civil Suit No. 181 of 2001, seeking a declaration that the subsequent allotment was illegal and that they were the rightful owners of the land.
Trial Court’s Decision (2006)
On 14 August 2006, the trial court decreed in favour of the plaintiffs, declaring the allotment to defendants Nos. 3 to 5 as illegal and recognising the plaintiffs as lawful owners entitled to possession of the land.
First Appeal (2010)
Only defendants Nos. 4 and 5 challenged this judgment before the first appellate court under Section 96 CPC. During the pendency of the appeal, both appellants passed away—defendant No. 4 on 27 October 2006 and defendant No. 5 on 20 September 2010. Despite their demise, their counsel continued the proceedings without the substitution of legal heirs. The appellate court, unaware of their deaths, heard arguments on 28 September 2010 and delivered its judgment on 20 October 2010, modifying the trial court’s decree.
The appellate court held that the plaintiffs were entitled only to a portion of the land allotted to their predecessor.
Procedural Complications and High Court Proceedings
The plaintiffs, aggrieved by the modified decree, filed a second appeal under Section 100 CPC, which was later dismissed by the Registrar (Judicial) as abated against the deceased appellants (defendants Nos. 4 and 5). The plaintiffs then moved an application asserting that since the first appeal itself had abated upon the appellants’ deaths, the appellate judgment was void ab initio.
Recognising the force of this argument, the High Court restored the second appeal, observing that the issue of abatement was not in dispute. However, the plaintiffs subsequently withdrew the second appeal, stating that the trial court decree continued to operate as the appellate judgment was a nullity.
Subsequently, the plaintiffs’ legal heir, Vikram Bhalchandra Ghongade, filed Execution Petition No. 22 of 2022, seeking enforcement of the original decree. The executing court, however, dismissed the execution, reasoning that the trial court’s decree had merged with the appellate decree, which modified it.
The High Court upheld this dismissal in Writ Petition No. 5791 of 2023 on 11 March 2024, leading to the present appeal before the Supreme Court.
Issue for Determination
The core question before the Supreme Court was:
- Whether a decree passed in favour of or against a deceased party, without substitution of legal heirs, is valid and executable in law?
This question necessitated examination of the provisions of Order XXII, Rules 2 and 6 CPC, which govern the effect of a party’s death during the pendency of legal proceedings.
Appellant’s Contention
The appellant, appearing in person, argued that:
- Both defendants Nos. 4 and 5 had died before the appeal was heard; hence, the judgment passed on 20 October 2010 was void.
- As per Order XXII Rule 6 CPC, proceedings are saved only if death occurs after conclusion of the hearing but before pronouncement of judgment. In the present case, both appellants died before the hearing, rendering the appeal incompetent.
- Consequently, the decree passed by the trial court revived automatically and was the only executable decree.
- The executing and High Courts erred in applying the principle of “merger” of decrees, as a void judgment cannot supersede a valid one.
The appellant relied upon precedents such as:
- Bibi Rahmani Khatoon v. Harkoo Gope (1981 INSC 100)
- Rajendra Prasad v. Khirodhar Mahto (Civil Appeal No. 2275 of 1994)
- Amba Bai v. Gopal (2001 INSC 263)
to contend that any decree passed in favour of a dead person is non est in law.
Respondents’ Argument
Counsel for the respondents countered that the appeal could not be said to have abated since the judgment was delivered within the 90-day limitation period for substitution prescribed under Article 120 of the Limitation Act, 1963. They argued that unless abatement is formally recorded, the appellate decree remains valid.
Further, it was submitted that the trial court’s decree had merged with the appellate decree, and therefore, only the latter could be executed.
Supreme Court’s Analysis
The Supreme Court carefully examined the timeline of events and the statutory framework.
1. Death Prior to Hearing: Application of Order XXII Rule 6 CPC
Order XXII Rule 6 CPC provides that if a party dies after the conclusion of the hearing but before judgment, the decree shall not abate and will take effect as if pronounced before the death. The Court held that this saving provision was inapplicable because both defendants died before the appeal was heard on 28 September 2010.
Hence, the appeal stood vitiated, as there was no living appellant at the time of hearing or judgment.
2. Legal Effect of Decree Passed for Dead Persons
The Court reiterated that any judgment or decree passed for or against a dead person is a nullity—incapable of execution or enforcement. The reasoning was fortified by its earlier pronouncements:
- Rajendra Prasad v. Khirodhar Mahto (1994) — An appellate decree passed in favour of a deceased appellant is void.
- Amba Bai v. Gopal (2001) — Where appellants die before hearing and no substitution occurs, adjudication becomes non est.
- Kiran Singh v. Chaman Paswan (1954 INSC 45) — A decree that is a nullity can be challenged whenever and wherever it is sought to be enforced, including during execution proceedings.
Applying these principles, the bench held:
“The judgment pronounced in the first appeal on 20.10.2010 was in favor of parties who were no more alive. The said adjudication, therefore, amounted to a nullity and did not have the force of law.”
3. Revival of Trial Court Decree
Since the appellate decree was void, the decree of the trial court automatically revived and remained enforceable. The Court clarified that the doctrine of “merger” does not apply to a void judgment.
“When the appellant(s) expires prior to hearing of the appeal, which is subsequently allowed without bringing the legal heirs on record, the judgment in favour of deceased appellants would be a nullity… Hence, the decree passed by the trial court would revive for being executed.”
4. Rights of Non-appealing Parties
The Court also observed that defendant No. 3, who had not appealed against the trial court’s decree, could not benefit from the null appellate judgment. As such, the contest by respondent No. 3 was held inconsequential.
Judgment and Directions
Allowing the appeal, the Supreme Court set aside:
- The order dated 21 June 2023 passed by the executing court in Regular Darkhast No. 22 of 2022, and
- The High Court’s order dated 11 March 2024 in Writ Petition No. 5791 of 2023.
The Court restored the execution proceedings, enabling the appellant to execute the trial court’s decree passed in Regular Civil Suit No. 181 of 2001.
The bench concluded emphatically:
“A decree passed in favour of a dead person is a nullity in law. Since the decree of the first appellate court was such a nullity, the plaintiffs are entitled to execute the decree of the trial court.”
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s pronouncement in Vikram Bhalchandra Ghongade v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. serves as a clear reminder that judicial decisions derive their legitimacy only when rendered in the presence of living litigants. The Court’s declaration that such a decree is “a nullity in law” restores both procedural sanctity and doctrinal coherence.
By setting aside the High Court’s and executing court’s erroneous orders, the apex court not only upheld the inviolability of procedural law but also reinforced the timeless principle that a void decree cannot eclipse a valid one.
In essence, death extinguishes litigation unless the law revives it through substitution, and any decree born of such extinguished litigation is itself lifeless.