Institute of Legal and Management Studies

In a notable ruling delivered on Friday (July 18), the Supreme Court held that when a joint and indivisible 'decree' is passed involving multiple plaintiffs or defendants, the entire appeal will abate as per Order XII Rule 3 of Code of Civil Procedure (“CPC”) if the legal representatives of any deceased party are not substituted in time.

The Court reasoned that failure to bring the legal heirs on record in such cases may result in conflicting or inconsistent decrees, warranting complete abatement of the appeal. Otherwise, it will lead to a conflicting or inconsistent decree, which is impermissible in cases involving joint and indivisible decrees.

“In a case of “joint and indivisible decree” or “joint and inseverable or inseparable decree”, the abatement of appeal in relation to one or more of the appellant(s) or respondent(s) on account of failure to bring on record his or their legal representatives in time would prove fatal to the entire appeal because proceeding qua the surviving party or parties may give rise to inconsistent or contradictory decrees.”, the court said.

“In consequence, if, due to non-substitution of LRs of a deceased party, the decree qua the deceased party has attained finality by abatement of proceedings qua him, the Court cannot proceed further if a reversal or modification of the decree under appeal would result in conflicting or inconsistent decrees. Therefore, in such a situation, the appeal would abate in its entirety.”, the court added.

Background

The bench comprising Justice PS Narasimha and Justice Manoj Misra heard the matter where dispute stemmed from a civil suit filed in 1983 by the plaintiff (Parasram) seeking declaration of ownership, possession, and mesne profits over a house. The defendants, Suresh Chandra and Ram Babu, denied the tenancy allegations and instead claimed ownership via their father Gokul Prasad, asserting inheritance through a family partition in 1947.

While the Trial Court dismissed the suit, the First Appellate Court reversed the decision and held in favor of the plaintiff. A second appeal was then filed by Suresh Chandra's legal representatives and Ram Babu. However, during pendency of the appeal, Ram Babu died in 2015, and his legal heirs were not substituted. In 2022, the High Court declared the appeal abated because of timely non-substitution of the LRs of Ram Babu.

Aggrieved by the High Court's decision, the defendant appealed to the Supreme Court.

Decision

Affirming the High Court's decision, the judgment authored by Justice Misra ruled that because the First Appellate Court decreed the suit against the Appellants/defendants making it joint and inseparable, therefore the failure to substitute the legal heirs of Ram Babu would lead to complete abatement of the appeal. Since, both defendants/Appellants had taken a common stand, denying tenancy and jointly claiming ownership. Hence, the rights of the two were interdependent, not severable.

Thus, the Court observed that proceeding with the appeal only against one defendant (Suresh Chandra's LRs) would risk conflicting decrees, especially since the decree against Ram Babu had already attained finality due to abatement.

“On abatement of second appeal qua the second appellant Ram Babu, the entire second appeal abated as continuance of the second appeal would have given rise to a possibility of inconsistent decrees i.e., one in favour of the plaintiff against the deceased defendant-appellant and the other in favour of the surviving defendant appellant, even though both defendants claimed joint interest in the suit property flowing from their father.”, the court observed.

In support, the court referred to the Constitution Bench decision of Sardar Amarjit Singh Kalra (Dead) by LRs and Others v. Pramod Gupta (Smt.) (Dead) by LRs and Other (2003) 3 SCC 272, which observed that:

“in case of “joint and indivisible decree”, “joint and inseverable or inseparable decree”, the abatement of proceedings in relation to one or more of the appellant(s) or respondent(s) on account of omission or lapse and failure to bring on record his or their legal representatives in time would prove fatal to the entire appeal and require to be dismissed in toto, as otherwise inconsistent or contradictory decrees would result and proper reliefs could not be granted, conflicting with the one which had already become final with respect to the same subject-matter vis-à-vis the others.”

The Court summarized the law governing the determination of the issue as to whether abatement of an appeal on non-substitution of a deceased party is partial or whole, as under:

1. The answer to the question whether the entire appeal abates or it abates partially qua the deceased party alone, will depend on facts of each case and, therefore, no exhaustive statement about the circumstances in which the entire appeal would abate can be made.

2. As a matter of course courts will not proceed with an appeal (a) when the success of the appeal may lead to the court coming to a decision which is in conflict with the decision between the appellant and the deceased respondent which had become final with respect to the same subject-matter between the appellant and the deceased respondent; (b) when the appellant could not have brought the action for the necessary relief against those respondents alone who are still before the court; and (c) when the decree against the surviving respondents, if the appeal succeeds, be ineffective that is to say, it would not be successfully executed.

3. In a case of “joint and indivisible decree” or “joint and inseverable or inseparable decree”, the abatement of appeal in relation to one or more of the appellant(s) or respondent(s) on account of failure to bring on record his or their legal representatives in time would prove fatal to the entire appeal because proceeding qua the surviving party or parties may give rise to inconsistent or contradictory decrees.

4. The question as to whether the decree is joint and inseverable, or joint and severable or separable, must be decided, for the purposes of abatement or dismissal of the entire appeal, only with reference to the fact as to whether the judgment/decree passed in the proceedings vis-àvis the remaining parties would suffer the vice of contradictory or inconsistent decrees.

5. A decree can be said to be contradictory or inconsistent with another decree only when the two decrees are incapable of enforcement or would be mutually self-destructive and that the enforcement of one would negate or render impossible the enforcement of the other which means that the two decrees are mutually irreconcilable or totally inconsistent, that is, if laid side by side, the only impression would be that one is in the teeth of the other.

6. Where the plaintiffs or appellants have distinct, separate and independent rights of their own i.e., not inter-dependent upon the other, and for the purpose of convenience, or otherwise, joined together in a single litigation to vindicate their rights, the decree passed by the court thereon is to be viewed in substance as a combination of several decrees in favour of one or the other parties and not as a joint and inseverable decree.

7. Existence of a joint right as distinguished from tenancy-in-common is not the criterion of a joint or inseverable or inseparable decree. The joint character of the decree will take colour from the nature of the decree challenged.

In terms of the aforesaid, finding no merit, the Court dismissed the appeal.

Cause Title: SURESH CHANDRA (DECEASED) THR. LRS. & ORS. VERSUS PARASRAM & ORS.

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 728

Click here to read/download the judgment

Appearance:

For Petitioner(s) Mr. Jayant Mehta, Sr. Adv. Mr. Puneet Jain, Sr. Adv. Ms. Christi Jain, AOR Mr. Mann Arora, Adv. Mr. Harsh Jain, Adv. Mr. Om Sudhir Vidyarthi, Adv. Ms. Akriti Sharma, Adv. Mr. Ojusya Joshi, Adv.

For Respondent(s) Mr. N.K. Mody, Sr. Adv. Ms. Ishita M Puranik, Adv. Ms. Jigisha Agrawal, Adv. Mr. Suresh Kumar Bhan, Adv. Mr. Hari Sahteshwar, Adv. Mr. Praveen Swarup, AOR