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

Date of the Judgment: 26 April 2019

Citation: [Not provided in the source]

Judges: A.M. Khanwilkar, J. and Ajay Rastogi, J.

Can an appeal be dismissed in its entirety 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 property dispute case, focusing on the implications of abatement of appeals, particularly when the decree is joint and indivisible. This case revolves around a dispute over property ownership where the death of one of the appellants led to a complex legal challenge regarding the continuation of the appeal.

Case Background

The case originated from a suit filed by Yendru Sathiraju (the original plaintiff) in O.S. No. 175 of 1987, seeking a declaration of title and possession of three properties (Schedule ‘A’, ‘B’, and ‘C’) from the defendants/appellants. The trial court partially decreed the suit, granting title and possession of Schedule ‘A’ and ‘B’ properties to the plaintiff but rejecting the claim for Schedule ‘C’ property. The defendants, Goli Vijayalakshmi and others, who are real brothers, claimed co-ownership of the properties, asserting they inherited them from a common ancestor, Smt. Gole Sattemma. The High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad upheld the trial court’s decision.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The trial court partly decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff, declaring their title to Schedule ‘A’ and ‘B’ properties and directing the defendants to deliver possession. The High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the defendants and the cross-objections filed by the plaintiffs, confirming the trial court’s decree. The defendants then filed SLP(C) No. 9401 of 2006 before the Supreme Court, and the plaintiffs also filed SLP (C) No. 19919 of 2006. During the proceedings, the death of the second defendant/appellant, Goli Sathiraju, was noted, and since his legal representatives were not brought on record, the appeal was abated concerning him. The Supreme Court converted the special leave petitions into civil appeals.

Legal Framework

The Supreme Court considered the following legal provisions:

• Order 22 Rule 4(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC): This provision states that a suit or appeal shall abate against a deceased defendant if no application is made to bring their legal representatives on record within the stipulated time.
• Order 22 Rule 9 of the CPC: This rule specifies the effect of abatement, clarifying that no fresh suit is maintainable on the same cause of action.

The Court emphasized that while abatement occurs by operation of law, it results in a denial of a hearing on the merits. Therefore, the provisions related to abatement must be construed strictly within the parameters of the law.

Arguments

Respondents/Plaintiffs’ Arguments:

• The respondents argued that the appeals should be dismissed in their entirety because the death of appellant no. 2 and the subsequent abatement of the appeal concerning him would lead to contradictory decrees.
• They contended that if the remaining appellants were allowed to succeed, there would be two inconsistent decrees: one decreeing the suit in favour of the plaintiff against appellant no. 2, and another dismissing the suit against appellants no. 1 and 3.
• They argued that without clear demarcation of the properties, enforcing the decree against appellant no. 2 would impinge on the rights of appellants no. 1 and 3.

Appellants/Defendants’ Arguments:

• The appellants argued that they had distinct and separate rights in the suit properties, which they had internally divided among themselves.
• They contended that the trial court recognized these separate rights and that the High Court’s dismissal of their appeal and the plaintiffs’ cross-objections indicated that the defendants had substantive rights in the properties.
• They submitted that the non-substitution of the legal representatives of appellant no. 2 should not extinguish their rights, and they relied on Order 41 Rule 4 of the CPC to argue for substantial justice.
• They cited the case of Sardar Amarjit Singh Kalra(Dead) by LRs and Others vs. Pramod Gupta(Smt)(Dead) by LRs and Others [2003(3) SCC 272] to support their claim that the decree should not be treated as a joint and inseverable one.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court:

The Supreme Court considered the following issue:

1. Whether the appeals should be dismissed in their entirety due to the abatement of the appeal concerning appellant no. 2, considering the nature of the decree and the rights of the parties involved.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court:

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Cases:

• State of Punjab vs. Nathu Ram [AIR 1962 SC 89] – The Court discussed the principles for determining whether an appeal can proceed against remaining respondents when one respondent has died.
• Sardar Amarjit Singh Kalra(Dead) by LRs and Others vs. Pramod Gupta(Smt)(Dead) by LRs and Others [2003(3) SCC 272] – The Court referred to this Constitution Bench judgment to distinguish between joint and inseverable decrees and decrees that are a combination of several decrees.
• Budh Ram and Others vs. Bansi and Others [2010(11) SCC 476] – The Court considered this case to reiterate the principle of whether the judgment/decree would suffer from the vice of contradictory or inconsistent decrees.

Legal Provisions:

• Order 22 Rule 4(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC): Regarding abatement of suit/appeal against a deceased defendant.
• Order 22 Rule 9 of the CPC: Regarding the effect of abatement.
• Order 41 Rule 4 of the CPC: Regarding one of several plaintiffs or defendants may obtain reversal of the whole decree.
• Order 41 Rule 33 of the CPC: Regarding the power of the Appellate Court.

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Supreme Court relied on State of Punjab vs. Nathu Ram [AIR 1962 SC 89]* to establish the tests for determining whether an appeal can proceed against remaining respondents when one respondent has died.
• The Court distinguished the facts of the case from Sardar Amarjit Singh Kalra(Dead) by LRs and Others vs. Pramod Gupta(Smt)(Dead) by LRs and Others [2003(3) SCC 272]*, stating that the decree in the present case was joint and indivisible, unlike the decrees in the cited case.
• The Court applied the principle laid down in Budh Ram and Others vs. Bansi and Others [2010(11) SCC 476]* to test whether the judgment/decree would suffer from the vice of contradictory or inconsistent decrees.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the principle that an appeal cannot proceed if it would lead to contradictory decrees. The Court emphasized the indivisible nature of the decree and the impossibility of enforcing it effectively without a clear demarcation of the properties.

Logical Reasoning:

The Court rejected the appellants’ argument that their distinct rights should be considered, stating that the decree was joint and indivisible and that allowing the appeal would lead to contradictory and unenforceable decrees. The Court also rejected the reliance on Order 41 Rule 4 and 33 of CPC, stating that it cannot indirectly reopen the decree which stands confirmed qua the appellant no. 2.

The Supreme Court’s reasoning was based on the following points:

• The judgment and decree passed by the trial court became final concerning appellant no. 2 upon the abatement of the appeal against him.
• Allowing the remaining appellants to prosecute the appeals would result in mutually inconsistent decrees.
• The suit properties were not clearly demarcated or divided among the defendants.
• Enforcing the decree against appellant no. 2 would be impossible without impinging on the rights of the other appellants.

The Court quoted the following from the judgment:

• “…the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court became final qua appellant no. 2(defendant no. 2) upon abatement of the appeal qua him vide order dated 24th July, 2009.”
• “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…”
• “…it would be impossible for the plaintiffs/respondents to enforce decree qua the appellant no. 2(defendant no. 2) without impinging on the rights of the appellant nos. 1 & 3(defendant nos. 1 & 3).”

Key Takeaways

• Abatement of Appeal: If an appellant dies and their legal representatives are not brought on record within the stipulated time, the appeal abates concerning that appellant.
• Joint and Indivisible Decrees: In cases involving joint and indivisible decrees, the abatement of an appeal against one party can lead to the abatement of the entire appeal.
• Contradictory Decrees: Courts will not allow appeals that would result in contradictory or inconsistent decrees, which are impossible to enforce.
• Importance of Legal Representation: It is crucial to ensure that legal representatives are brought on record in a timely manner to avoid abatement of appeals.

Potential Future Impact: This judgment reinforces the importance of procedural compliance in appeals and highlights the consequences of failing to bring legal representatives on record. It also clarifies the implications of abatement in cases involving joint and indivisible decrees, providing guidance for future cases.

Directions

The Supreme Court did not give any specific directions in this judgment, other than dismissing the appeals as abated.

Specific Amendments Analysis

There are no specific amendments discussed in the judgment.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that an appeal abates in its entirety if one of the appellants dies, their legal representatives are not brought on record, and the decree is joint and indivisible. This judgment reaffirms the established principles regarding abatement of appeals and the need to avoid contradictory decrees. There is no change in the previous position of law, rather, the judgment reiterates the existing position of law.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals in Goli Vijayalakshmi & Ors. vs. Yendru Sathiraju (Dead) By Lrs. & Ors., holding that the appeals abated in toto due to the death of one of the appellants and the failure to bring their legal representatives on record. The Court emphasized the joint and indivisible nature of the decree and the potential for contradictory decrees if the appeal were allowed to proceed. This decision underscores the critical importance of procedural compliance and the implications of abatement in cases involving multiple parties and joint decrees.