Abatement of Appeals: Supreme Court Dismisses Appeal in Property Dispute: Goli Vijayalakshmi & Ors. vs. Yendru Sathiraju (26 April 2019)

Date of the Judgment: 26 April 2019
Citation: 2019 INSC 402
Judges: A.M. Khanwilkar, J., Ajay Rastogi, J.

Can an appeal continue if one of the appellants dies and their legal heirs are not brought on record? The Supreme Court of India addressed this critical question in a civil property dispute, focusing on the implications of abatement of appeals. The core issue revolved around whether the entire appeal should be dismissed when one of the appellants passed away and their legal representatives were not substituted, especially when the decree was considered joint and indivisible. This case highlights the procedural intricacies of civil litigation and the consequences of non-compliance with legal timelines. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice A.M. Khanwilkar and Justice Ajay Rastogi, with Justice Rastogi authoring the opinion.

Case Background

The original suit, O.S. No. 175 of 1987, was filed by Yendru Sathiraju in the trial court seeking a declaration of title and recovery of possession for properties listed as schedule ‘A’, ‘B’, and ‘C’. The defendants, Goli Vijayalakshmi and her brothers, contested the claim, asserting their own rights to the properties. The trial court partially decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiff, declaring his title to schedule ‘A’ and ‘B’ properties, while dismissing the claim for schedule ‘C’ property. The defendants were directed to hand over possession of ‘A’ and ‘B’ properties to the plaintiff.

The defendants appealed the trial court’s decision to the High Court of Andhra Pradesh, which upheld the trial court’s decree. Subsequently, both the defendants and the plaintiff filed Special Leave Petitions (SLPs) before the Supreme Court. During the proceedings, one of the defendants, Goli Sathiraju (defendant no. 2), passed away on 21st February 2006, and his legal representatives were not brought on record. This led to the abatement of the appeal concerning defendant no. 2.

Timeline:

Legal Framework

The Supreme Court considered the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) concerning the abatement of appeals. Specifically, Order 22 Rule 4(3) of the CPC states that a suit or appeal shall abate against a deceased defendant if no application is made to bring the legal representatives on record within the stipulated time. Additionally, Order 22 Rule 9 of the CPC clarifies that no fresh suit is maintainable on the same cause of action once a suit has abated.

The court also emphasized that while abatement occurs by operation of law, the primary role of the court is to adjudicate disputes and advance substantial justice. Therefore, provisions related to abatement must be strictly construed to avoid denying a hearing on the merits of a case.

The relevant provisions are:

• Order 22 Rule 4(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure: “Where within the time limited by law no application is made under sub-rule (1), the suit shall abate as against the deceased defendant.”
• Order 22 Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure: “Where a suit abates or is dismissed under this Order, no fresh suit shall be brought on the same cause of action.”

Arguments

Respondents/Plaintiffs’ Arguments:

• The respondents argued that the appeals should be dismissed in their entirety because the decree was joint and indivisible. Allowing the remaining appellants to continue would result in contradictory decrees, as the suit had already been decreed in favor of the plaintiff against the deceased appellant (defendant no. 2).
• They contended that without clear demarcation of the properties, it would be impossible for them to enforce the decree against defendant no. 2 without infringing on the rights of the other defendants.

Appellants/Defendants’ Arguments:

• The appellants argued that they had distinct and separate rights to the suit properties, which they had internally divided among themselves. They claimed that the abatement against defendant no. 2 should not extinguish their rights to appeal.
• They relied on the judgment in Sardar Amarjit Singh Kalra (Dead) by LRs and Others vs. Pramod Gupta (Smt) (Dead) by LRs and Others [2003(3) SCC 272], asserting that the decree should be viewed as a combination of several decrees, not a joint one.
• They also invoked Order 41 Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure, arguing that the court has the power to do substantial justice.

The appellants contended that the judgment of the trial court recognizes separate and distinct rights of the appellants and the High Court while dismissing the appeal of the appellants and the cross objections of the respondents makes it evident that the defendants had their own distinct and substantive rights in the suit properties.

The respondents argued that if the remaining appellants were to succeed, there would be two mutually inconsistent decrees, as the suit has already been decreed against defendant no. 2, and the suit would be dismissed against the other defendants.

The respondents argued that without clear demarcation of the properties, it would be impossible for them to enforce the decree against defendant no. 2 without impinging on the rights of the other defendants.

Submissions of Parties

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court considered the following issues:

1. Whether the appeals abate in toto due to the death of one of the appellants and the failure to bring their legal representatives on record.
2. Whether the decree passed by the trial court was joint and indivisible, thereby necessitating the abatement of the entire appeal.
3. Whether the remaining appellants could prosecute the appeals based on Order 41 Rule 4 and 33 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Cases:

• State of Punjab vs. Nathu Ram [AIR 1962 SC 89] – Supreme Court: This case was cited to emphasize that courts should not proceed with an appeal if it leads to conflicting decisions or if the decree against the surviving respondents would be ineffective.
• Sardar Amarjit Singh Kalra (Dead) by LRs and Others vs. Pramod Gupta (Smt) (Dead) by LRs and Others [2003(3) SCC 272] – Supreme Court: This Constitution Bench judgment was discussed to determine whether a decree is joint and inseverable or joint and severable. The court held that decrees should be seen as a combination of several decrees if the parties have distinct rights.
• Budh Ram and Others vs. Bansi and Others [2010(11) SCC 476] – Supreme Court: This case was considered to reiterate the principle that a decree should not be enforced if it leads to contradictory or inconsistent outcomes.

Legal Provisions:

• Order 22 Rule 4(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure: This provision specifies that a suit or appeal shall abate against a deceased defendant if no application is made to bring the legal representatives on record within the stipulated time.
• Order 22 Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure: This provision clarifies that no fresh suit is maintainable on the same cause of action once a suit has abated.
• Order 41 Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure: This rule allows one of several appellants to appeal a decree, but the court clarified that it cannot be used to challenge a decree that has become final due to abatement.
• Order 41 Rule 33 of the Code of Civil Procedure: This provision empowers the appellate court to pass any decree that ought to have been passed, but the court clarified that it cannot be used to challenge a decree that has become final due to abatement.

Authorities Considered by the Court

Judgment

The Supreme Court held that the appeals stood abated in toto. The Court reasoned that the decree passed by the trial court was joint and indivisible, and allowing the remaining appellants to pursue the appeal would lead to contradictory decrees. The Court emphasized that the suit properties had not been clearly demarcated, making it impossible to enforce the decree against the deceased appellant without affecting the rights of the other appellants.

The Court rejected the appellants’ argument that Order 41 Rule 4 of the CPC could be invoked to allow the remaining appellants to continue the appeal. The Court clarified that once the appeal had abated against one appellant, the decree which stands confirmed qua the appellant cannot be indirectly reopened to challenge at the behest of persons claiming through him.

Treatment of Submissions by the Court

How each authority was viewed by the Court

The following table shows how each authority was used by the court in its reasoning:

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the need to avoid contradictory decrees and ensure the enforceability of its judgments. The court emphasized the indivisible nature of the decree and the lack of clear demarcation of the suit properties. The court was also influenced by the fact that the legal representatives of the deceased appellant were not brought on record within the stipulated time, leading to the abatement of the appeal against that appellant. The court was also influenced by the fact that the decree had become final against the deceased appellant and the same cannot be reopened indirectly.

The court was not persuaded by the arguments that the appellants had distinct rights or that Order 41 Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure could be invoked to allow the remaining appellants to continue the appeal. The court’s reasoning focused on the procedural aspects of abatement and the legal principles governing joint and indivisible decrees.

Fact:Law Ratio:

Logical Reasoning:

The court considered that if the appeals were to be allowed, the same would result in a situation where the enforcement of the two decrees would be unexecutable and the enforcement of one would negate or render impossible the enforcement of the other. The court also considered that the plaintiffs/respondents would be entitled to the share of the appellant no. 2 in the suit schedule ‘A’ and ‘B’ properties and there is no way he could enforce the same without negating the enforcement of the other decree viz. dismissal of the suit qua appellant nos. 1 & 3.

The court also noted that the suit schedule properties each constitute a single unit and the same has not yet been demarcated and/or divided amongst the defendants and without such clear demarcation and delineation of the properties, it would be impossible for the plaintiffs/respondents to enforce decree qua the appellant no. 2 without impinging on the rights of the appellant nos. 1 & 3.

The Supreme Court quoted from the judgment:

“If this Court would permit the remaining appellants to prosecute the appeals and, in the event they were to succeed, indisputedly, there would be mutually inconsistent/contradictory decrees inasmuch as the suit has already been decreed qua appellant no. 2(defendant no. 2) on the one hand and the suit would stand dismissed qua appellant nos. 1 & 3(defendant nos. 1 & 3)…”

“If the instant appeals were to be allowed, the same would result in a situation where the enforcement of the two decrees would be inexecutable and the enforcement of one would negate or render impossible the enforcement of the other…”

“once the appeal stood abated against the appellant no. 2(defendant no. 2) and the decree which stands confirmed qua the appellant no. 2(defendant no. 2) cannot indirectly be reopened to challenge at the behest of persons claiming through him by relying on provisions of Order 41 R 4 & 33 CPC as prayed for.”

Key Takeaways

• When an appeal involves multiple appellants and one of them dies, failure to bring the legal representatives of the deceased on record within the stipulated time can lead to the abatement of the appeal against the deceased.
• If the decree is considered joint and indivisible, the abatement of the appeal against one appellant can result in the abatement of the entire appeal.
• Courts will not proceed with an appeal if it would lead to contradictory or inconsistent decrees.
• The principles of Order 41 Rule 4 and 33 of the Code of Civil Procedure cannot be used to challenge a decree that has become final due to abatement.
• Clear demarcation of properties is crucial in property disputes to avoid complications in the enforcement of decrees.

Directions

No specific directions were given by the Supreme Court in this judgment.

Specific Amendments Analysis

There is no discussion of any specific amendments in this judgment.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that when a decree is joint and indivisible, and one of the appellants dies without their legal representatives being brought on record, the entire appeal abates. This reiterates the importance of adhering to procedural rules and the consequences of failing to do so, particularly in cases involving joint decrees. The judgment clarifies that the provisions of Order 41 Rule 4 and 33 of the Code of Civil Procedure cannot be used to circumvent the consequences of abatement.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Goli Vijayalakshmi & Ors. vs. Yendru Sathiraju (Dead) By Lrs. & Ors. underscores the critical importance of procedural compliance in civil litigation, particularly concerning the abatement of appeals. The Court’s decision to dismiss the appeals in toto highlights the indivisible nature of the decree and the need to avoid contradictory outcomes. This case serves as a reminder that failure to bring legal representatives on record within the prescribed time can have significant consequences, leading to the dismissal of entire appeals.