Court’s Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal challenging the High Court’s decision, which had declared the second appeal to have fully abated due to non-substitution of the legal representatives of one co-appellant. The Court upheld the High Court’s refusal to condone the inordinate delay in filing substitution applications and ruled that the appeal could not proceed in part when it would lead to contradictory decrees.
Facts
A civil suit was filed seeking declaration, possession, and mesne profits concerning a house property. The original defendants, Suresh Chandra and Ram Babu, claimed title through their ancestor by partition. The trial court dismissed the suit, but the first appellate court decreed it in favour of the plaintiffs. A second appeal was filed by the legal representatives of Suresh Chandra and Ram Babu. During its pendency, Ram Babu died, and his legal heirs were not substituted within time. The High Court held the appeal had abated, rejecting condonation of delay applications after a gap of nearly six years.
Issues
- Whether the High Court rightly rejected applications for condoning the delay in substituting legal representatives.
- Whether the second appeal abated fully or partially.
- Whether Order XLI Rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Code could prevent abatement of the entire appeal.
Petitioner’s Arguments
The appellants argued that the surviving legal heirs had independent rights and under Order XLI Rule 4, the surviving appellants could seek reversal of the decree. They contended the High Court erred in treating the appeal as fully abated and cited multiple judgments to establish that appeals could proceed partially if surviving appellants retained an independent right to sue.
Respondent’s Arguments
The respondents argued the decree was joint and indivisible, making partial appeal continuation impermissible. They contended the surviving appellants could not continue the appeal without substitution of Ram Babu’s heirs, as this would create contradictory decrees. They supported the High Court’s view that the entire appeal abated.
Analysis of the Law
The Supreme Court elaborated on the distinction between partial and total abatement, explaining the legal effect of non-substitution. It analysed Order XXII and Order XLI Rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Code, holding that where decrees are joint and indivisible, the appeal cannot proceed partially. The Court also clarified that Order XLI Rule 4, allowing surviving appellants to challenge an entire decree, does not override mandatory substitution requirements when appeal rights are intertwined.
Precedent Analysis
The Court relied extensively on Sardar Amarjit Singh Kalra v. Pramod Gupta (2003) and State of Punjab v. Nathu Ram (1962), reiterating that in cases of joint and indivisible decrees, failure to substitute legal representatives causes total abatement. Decisions in Ram Sarup v. Munshi, Hemareddi v. Ramchandra, and others were cited to explain when inconsistent decrees would invalidate partial continuation of appeals.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court held that the decree against the defendants was joint, and any success in appeal would create two contradictory decrees, violating settled legal principles. It noted that the appellants’ delay in substitution remained unexplained despite early knowledge of the death, and therefore, abatement could not be set aside. Order XLI Rule 4 was held inapplicable as the case involved a joint indivisible decree, not separable rights.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upheld the High Court’s declaration of total abatement, and concluded that non-substitution of a deceased appellant’s legal representatives extinguishes appeal rights in joint decrees. Applications for condonation of delay and substitution were rightly rejected.
Implications
This judgment reinforces that in joint decrees, courts will not permit partial continuation of appeals when one party’s substitution is omitted. It clarifies the limitation on Order XLI Rule 4’s applicability and strengthens procedural discipline in appeal proceedings.
Referred Judgments Summary
- Sardar Amarjit Singh Kalra (2003) held appeals abate fully when non-substitution leads to conflicting decrees.
- State of Punjab v. Nathu Ram (1962) reiterated total abatement in joint decrees.
- Ram Sarup v. Munshi (1963), Hemareddi v. Ramchandra (2019), and others established that appeals involving joint rights cannot be partially maintained when substitution fails.
FAQs
1. When does non-substitution of legal heirs cause full abatement of an appeal?
When the decree is joint and indivisible, failure to substitute legal representatives causes the appeal to abate fully due to the risk of contradictory judgments.
2. Can Order XLI Rule 4 prevent appeal abatement?
No, in cases involving joint rights or decrees, Order XLI Rule 4 does not override the requirement for timely substitution of deceased parties.
3. Can delay in substitution be condoned after several years?
No, the Court held that unexplained long delays, especially when knowledge existed, bar condonation under Order XXII Rule 9.