Supreme Court rules on Abatement of Appeals in Joint Property Disputes: Hemareddi vs. Ramachandra (2019)

Date of the Judgment: May 7, 2019
Citation: 2019 INSC 443
Judges: Ashok Bhushan, J., K.M. Joseph, J. (authored the judgment)
Can a legal appeal concerning joint property rights be dismissed entirely if one of the joint appellants dies and their legal heirs aren’t included in the case? The Supreme Court of India addressed this critical question in a case involving a dispute over family property and the validity of an adoption. The Court examined whether the death of one appellant in a joint appeal concerning property rights would result in the entire appeal being dismissed. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justices Ashok Bhushan and K.M. Joseph, with Justice Joseph authoring the opinion.

Case Background

The case revolves around a property dispute between two brothers, the plaintiffs, and the respondents. The plaintiffs, children of one of the sons of Govindareddi, claimed that the suit properties were part of their joint family with Govindareddi and his sons. The second defendant was the wife of the other son, Basava reddi. The plaintiffs filed a suit seeking a declaration that the first defendant was not the adopted son of the second defendant and had no right to the property. They also sought an injunction to prevent the defendants from interfering with their joint possession. The plaintiffs contended that the second defendant had created a false adoption document dated April 27, 1991, to adopt the first defendant. The trial court dismissed the suit, upholding the adoption. The plaintiffs then filed a first appeal before the High Court.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The trial court dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiffs, thereby upholding the adoption of the first defendant by the second defendant. The plaintiffs, who were brothers, then jointly filed a first appeal before the High Court. During the pendency of the appeal, one of the brothers (the second appellant) died. The legal representatives (LRs) of the deceased brother were not brought on record. The High Court noted that the appeal had abated against the deceased brother. The High Court also noted that the first appellant sought permission to continue the appeal, which was granted. However, the High Court ultimately ruled that the entire appeal abated due to the death of the second appellant and the failure to bring his LRs on record. The High Court reasoned that allowing the appeal to proceed would result in conflicting decrees.

Legal Framework

The Supreme Court examined the provisions of Order XXII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), which deals with the procedure in case of the death of one of several plaintiffs or a sole plaintiff. Order XXII Rule 3(1) states that if one of the plaintiffs dies and the right to sue does not survive to the surviving plaintiffs alone, the court shall cause the legal representative of the deceased plaintiff to be made a party. Order XXII Rule 3(2) provides that if no such application is made within the time limited by law, the suit shall abate so far as the deceased plaintiff is concerned. The Court also considered Order XXII Rule 4 of the CPC, which deals with the death of one of several defendants or a sole defendant.

Order XXII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) states:

“3. Procedure in case of death of one of several plaintiffs or of sole plaintiff
(1) Where one of two or more plaintiffs dies and the right to sue does not survive to the surviving plaintiff or plaintiffs alone, or a sole plaintiff or sole surviving plaintiff dies and the right to the sue survives, the Court, on an application made in that behalf, shall cause the legal representative of the deceased plaintiff to be made a party and shall proceed with the suit.
(2) Where within the time limited by law no application is made under sub -rule (1), the suit shall abate so far as the deceased plaintiff is concerned, and, on the application of the defendant, the Court may award to him the costs which he may have incurred in defending the suit, to be recovered from the estate of the deceased plaintiff.”

Arguments

Appellant’s Submissions:

• The appellant argued that he could have filed a separate suit seeking the same relief.
• The appellant relied on the High Court’s order dated 10/09/2001, which granted him permission to prosecute the appeal despite the death of the second appellant. He contended that this order should estop the court and the respondents from arguing that the appeal had abated as a whole.
• The appellant argued that the respondents did not object to the prosecution of the appeal by the first appellant, even though they knew the second appellant’s LRs were not on record.
• The appellant cited the judgment in Sardar Amarjit Singh Kalra (Dead) BY LRS. and Others v. Pramod Gupta (Smt) (D) BY LRS. And Others; 2003 (3) SCC 272 to support his argument that the appeal should not abate as a whole.

Respondents’ Submissions:

• The respondents argued that the High Court’s order did not operate as an estoppel, preventing them from contending that the appeal had abated as a whole.
• The respondents contended that allowing the appeal would lead to conflicting decrees. The trial court had upheld the adoption, and if the High Court allowed the appeal, it would invalidate the adoption, resulting in two contradictory judgments.
• The respondents argued that the decree of the trial court had become final with respect to the deceased second appellant.

Submissions Table

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court:

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in a separate section. However, the core issue that the Court addressed was:

✓ Whether the appeal filed jointly by the appellant and his deceased brother abates entirely due to the death of the brother and the failure to bring his legal representatives on record.

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: The Court discussed the principle that an appeal against co-respondents may not proceed if it leads to conflicting decrees.
• Ram Sarup vs. Munshi & Ors., 1963 (3) SCR 858: The Court discussed that a joint decree cannot be partially preempted, and if a part of the decree becomes final due to abatement, the entire appeal would abate.
• Harihar Prasad Singh and Others vs. Balmiki Prasad Singh and Others, 1975 (1) SCC 212: The Court held that if each reversioner is entitled to their own specific share, the death of one plaintiff would not cause the entire appeal to abate.
• Sardar Amarjit Singh Kalra (Dead) by LRS. & Ors. vs. Pramod Gupta (Smt.)(Dead) by LRS. & Ors., 2003 (3) SCC 272: The Court held that where claimants have distinct and independent rights, the death of one claimant would not cause the entire appeal to abate.

Legal Provisions:

• Order XXII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC): Procedure in case of death of one of several plaintiffs or of sole plaintiff.
• Order XXII Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC): Procedure in case of death of one of several defendants or of sole defendant.

Authority Analysis

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court:

✓ State of Punjab vs. Nathu Ram [AIR 1962 SC 89]: The Court followed the principle that an appeal against co-respondents may not proceed if it leads to conflicting decrees.

✓ Ram Sarup vs. Munshi & Ors. [1963 (3) SCR 858]: The Court followed the principle that a joint decree cannot be partially preempted, and if a part of the decree becomes final due to abatement, the entire appeal would abate.

✓ Harihar Prasad Singh and Others vs. Balmiki Prasad Singh and Others [1975 (1) SCC 212]: The Court distinguished this case, noting that the facts were different as the plaintiffs in the present case had joint rights, not distinct and independent rights.

✓ Sardar Amarjit Singh Kalra (Dead) by LRS. & Ors. vs. Pramod Gupta (Smt.)(Dead) by LRS. & Ors. [2003 (3) SCC 272]: The Court distinguished this case, noting that the claimants in that case had distinct and independent claims, unlike the joint claim in the present case.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the need to avoid conflicting decrees. The Court emphasized that the rights asserted by the two brothers were joint, not distinct. Allowing the appeal to proceed after the death of one brother and the abatement of the appeal against him would have resulted in contradictory judgments. The trial court’s decree upholding the adoption had become final with respect to the deceased brother, and any decree passed by the High Court in favor of the surviving brother would directly contradict this final decree. The Court also noted that the permission granted to the first appellant to continue the appeal was not sufficient to overcome the legal obstacle posed by the inconsistent decrees.

The Court’s reasoning was primarily based on legal principles and precedents, with a lesser emphasis on the factual aspects of the case. The Court focused on the legal implications of the death of one of the appellants and the resulting abatement of the appeal against him.

Logical Reasoning

The Supreme Court held that the appeal had abated as a whole. The Court reasoned that the right set up by the appellant and his deceased brother was joint, and the trial court’s decree had become final with respect to the deceased brother. Allowing the appeal to proceed would result in conflicting decrees. The Court emphasized that the decree, if passed by the appellate court, would be absolutely contrary to the decree that had attained finality between the deceased brother and the defendants. The Court further stated that the permission granted to the appellant to prosecute the appeal did not overcome the legal obstacle posed by the inconsistent decrees.

The Court observed:

“The decree, which the appellant, if successful in the appeal, would obtain, would be absolutely contrary to the decree which has also attained finality between his late brother and the defendants. They are mutually irreconcilable, totally inconsistent. Laying one side by side, the only impression would be that one is in the teeth of the other. In one, the suit is dismissed whereas in the other, the suit would have been decreed.”

The Court further stated:

“The impact of death of the late brother of the appellant qua the proceeding is one arising out of the incompatibility of a decree which has become final with the decree which the appellant invites the appellate court to pass.”

Finally, the Court concluded:

“Consequently, we see no merit in the appeal. It is accordingly dismissed.”

Key Takeaways

• If a joint appeal is filed and one of the appellants dies, the appeal may abate entirely if the legal representatives of the deceased appellant are not brought on record, particularly in cases involving joint property rights.
• The principle of avoiding conflicting decrees is a paramount consideration for the courts.
• Permission to continue an appeal granted by an interlocutory order is not sufficient to overcome the legal obstacle posed by inconsistent decrees.
• The nature of the right asserted (joint or distinct) is crucial in determining whether the appeal abates as a whole or not.

Directions

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

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that in a joint appeal concerning joint property rights, if one of the appellants dies and their legal representatives are not brought on record, the entire appeal will abate if allowing the appeal to proceed would result in conflicting decrees. This judgment reinforces the principle that the courts must avoid contradictory judgments and that procedural rules should not be used to undermine substantive rights. This case clarifies the application of Order XXII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) in the context of joint appeals and joint property rights.

Conclusion

In the case of Hemareddi (D) Through LRs vs. Ramachandra Yallappa Hosmani And Ors., the Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision that the appeal had abated as a whole due to the death of one of the joint appellants and the failure to bring his legal representatives on record. The Court emphasized that the rights asserted by the brothers were joint and that allowing the appeal to proceed would result in conflicting decrees. This judgment highlights the importance of adhering to procedural rules, particularly in cases involving joint rights and the need to avoid contradictory judgments.