Supreme Court clarifies procedure for determining legal representatives in pending appeals: Mahanth Satyanand vs. Shyam Lal Chauhan (2018) INSC 89 (8 February 2018)

Date of the Judgment: 8 February 2018
Citation: (2018) INSC 89
Judges: N.V. Ramana, J., S. Abdul Nazeer, J.
Can a High Court allow multiple claimants to represent a deceased party in an appeal without first determining who the actual legal representative is? The Supreme Court of India addressed this critical procedural question in a recent judgment. This case clarifies the mandatory steps that must be followed when a party to a case dies during the pendency of an appeal and multiple individuals claim to be their legal representatives. The bench comprised Justices N.V. Ramana and S. Abdul Nazeer, with the majority opinion authored by Justice N.V. Ramana.

Case Background

The case originated from a suit filed by Shyam Lal Chauhan and others against Swami Sheo Dharmanand and others, seeking a declaration that the defendants were trespassers and for a permanent injunction. The trial court dismissed the suit, but the first appellate court reversed this decision in favor of the plaintiffs. The defendants then filed a second appeal before the High Court of Judicature at Patna. During the pendency of the second appeal, Swami Sheo Dharmanand, the first appellant, passed away. Subsequently, two individuals, Mahanth Satyanand and Swami Triyoganand, filed separate applications claiming to be the legal representatives of the deceased.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The High Court, recognizing the dispute over who was the legal representative, initially remanded the matter to the trial court to determine the legal heir under Order 22 Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC). The trial court submitted a report stating that Swami Satyanand Maharaj was the legal representative. However, instead of deciding the issue, the High Court allowed both claimants to be substituted in place of the deceased, permitting both to present their arguments in the second appeal. The High Court justified its decision by stating that both parties should be allowed to present their case, without determining who the legal representative was.

Legal Framework

The Supreme Court focused on the interpretation of Order 22 Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), which deals with the determination of legal representatives in cases where a party dies during the pendency of a suit or appeal. The provision states:

“Where a question arises as to whether any person is or is not the legal representative of a deceased plaintiff or a deceased defendant, such question shall be determined by the Court: Provided that where such question arises before an appellate Court, that court may, before determining the question, direct any subordinate court to try the question and to return the records together with evidence, if any, recorded at such trial, its findings and reasons therefore, and the appellate court may take the same into consideration in determining the question.”

The Supreme Court emphasized that this provision mandates the court to determine who the legal representative is before proceeding with the case. It noted that the purpose of this rule is to ensure that the estate of the deceased is properly represented in the proceedings.

Arguments

Appellant’s Arguments:

• The appellants contended that the High Court erred by allowing both claimants to be impleaded without first determining who the actual legal representative was, as required by Order 22 Rule 5 of the CPC.
• They argued that the High Court’s order was not in accordance with the law and that the High Court should have determined the legal representative before allowing participation in the appeal.
• The appellants emphasized that the High Court’s decision was unjust and contrary to settled legal principles.

Respondent’s Arguments:

• The respondent argued that the High Court was correct in allowing both applications, thereby providing an opportunity for both claimants to contest the appeal.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following issue for consideration:

1. Whether the High Court was right in allowing the applications of both the rival claimants in the pending appeal, entitling them to raise their respective arguments in the second appeal, without determining as to who is the actual legal representative of the deceased under Order 22 Rule 5 CPC.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates how the Court decided the issue:

Authorities

The Supreme Court relied on the following authority:

The Supreme Court also considered the following legal provision:

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Supreme Court followed Jaladi Suguna (deceased) through Lrs . Vs. Satya Sai Central Trust and Others, (2008) 8 SCC 521, stating that the determination of the legal representative should precede the hearing of the appeal on merits.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the mandatory nature of Order 22 Rule 5 of the CPC and the need to ensure proper representation of the deceased’s estate. The Court emphasized that procedural laws are meant to advance justice and that mandatory procedures cannot be skipped or ignored. The Court also highlighted the importance of adhering to established legal principles and precedents.

Sentiment Analysis of Reasons Given by the Supreme Court

Fact:Law Ratio

Logical Reasoning:

The Supreme Court stated that the High Court should have determined the legal representative based on the report submitted by the trial court and any objections or materials relied upon by the parties. The Court emphasized that the determination under Order 22 Rule 5 of the CPC is summary in nature and for a limited purpose. The Court clarified that the order passed on the impleadment applications does not operate as res judicata between the legal representatives regarding who should ascend as Guru.

The Court quoted the following from Jaladi Suguna (deceased) through Lrs . Vs. Satya Sai Central Trust and Others, (2008) 8 SCC 521:

“Filing an application to bring the legal representatives on record, does not amount to bringing the legal representatives on record… Until such decision by the court, the persons claiming to be the legal representatives have no right to represent the estate of the deceased, nor prosecute or defend the case.”

The Court further stated:

“The provisions of Rule IV and V of Order XXII are mandatory… The court cannot also postpone the decision as to who is the legal representative of the deceased respondent, for being decided along with the appeal on merits.”

The Court also clarified that:

“determination by the High Court would be limited to the question, as to who should be brought on record in the place of deceased for the purposes of continuing the suit alone, and nothing beyond that.”

The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order and remitted the matter back to the High Court to determine the legal representative of the deceased Swami Sheo Dharmanand. The High Court was directed to expedite the matter and dispose of it in accordance with the law.

Key Takeaways

• When a party dies during the pendency of an appeal, the court must first determine who the legal representative is before proceeding with the case.
• Order 22 Rule 5 of the CPC mandates that the court must decide the issue of legal representation before allowing any party to represent the deceased.
• The determination of legal representatives is a summary procedure for the limited purpose of continuing the suit and does not affect the final rights of the claimants.
• Courts cannot postpone the decision on legal representation to be decided along with the appeal on merits.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed the High Court to determine the legal representative of the deceased Swami Sheo Dharmanand based on the reports submitted by the trial court and any objections or materials relied upon by the parties. The High Court was also directed to expedite the matter and dispose of it in accordance with the law.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that the determination of the legal representative of a deceased party under Order 22 Rule 5 of the CPC is a mandatory procedural step that must be completed before the court can proceed with the merits of the case. This judgment reinforces the importance of adhering to procedural laws to ensure that the estate of the deceased is properly represented, and it clarifies that the determination is for the limited purpose of continuing the suit and does not affect the final rights of the claimants. There is no change in the previous position of law but the Supreme Court has reiterated the importance of following the mandatory procedure.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Mahanth Satyanand vs. Shyam Lal Chauhan clarifies the mandatory procedure for determining legal representatives in pending appeals. The Court emphasized that the High Court erred in allowing multiple claimants to represent the deceased without first determining who the actual legal representative was, as required by Order 22 Rule 5 of the CPC. The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order and remitted the matter back for proper adjudication, reinforcing the importance of adhering to procedural laws and ensuring proper representation of the deceased’s estate.

Category

• Civil Procedure Code, 1908
  • Order 22, Rule 5, Civil Procedure Code, 1908
  • Legal Representatives
  • Pending Appeals
  • Procedural Law

FAQ

Q: What happens when a party dies during a court case?
A: When a party dies during a court case, their legal representatives must be brought on record to continue the case. This ensures that the deceased’s interests are still represented in the legal proceedings.

Q: What is Order 22 Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908?
A: Order 22 Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is a legal provision that outlines the procedure for determining who the legal representative of a deceased party is. This rule mandates that the court must determine the legal representative before proceeding with the case.

Q: Can a court allow multiple claimants to represent a deceased party?
A: No, a court cannot allow multiple claimants to represent a deceased party without first determining who the actual legal representative is. The court must follow the procedure outlined in Order 22 Rule 5 of the CPC.

Q: What is the purpose of determining the legal representative?
A: The purpose of determining the legal representative is to ensure that the deceased’s estate is properly represented in the legal proceedings. This determination is for the limited purpose of continuing the suit and does not affect the final rights of the claimants.

Q: What did the Supreme Court decide in this case?
A: The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred by allowing multiple claimants to represent the deceased without first determining the legal representative. The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order and remitted the matter back for proper adjudication.