Jagarnath Gope vs Siromani Singh & Ors
2023 Latest Caselaw 860 Jhar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                      S.A. No. 481 of 2015
                            ------

    Jagarnath Gope                    .... .... .... Appellant
                            Versus
    Siromani Singh & Ors.             .... .... .... Respondents
                            ------

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY

------

For the Appellant : Mr. Arun Kumar, Advocate

------

Order No.08 Dated- 22.02.2023 I.A. No.1171 of 2023 It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that the proforma respondent no.3 -Karampal Singh died 20 years before filing of this interlocutory application on 03.02.2023. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the said Karampal Singh was the defendant no.1 in Title Suit No. 35 of 1993 and though he died during the pendency of the Title Suit No. 35 of 1993 but the decree in Title Suit No. 35 of 1993 has been passed against the defendant no.1 who was the dead person and the appellant before the learned first appellate court below filed Title Appeal No. 12 of 2011 suppressing the fact that by the time of filing of Title Appeal No. 12 of 2011, the respondent no.3 has already died. So Title Appeal No. 12 of 2011 was passed against a dead person and as the judgment and decree in Title Suit No. 35 of 1993 as well as in Title Appeal No. 12 of 2011 have been passed against a dead person, the same are nullity.

It is a settled principle of law that a decree passed in favour of or against a dead person is a nullity as has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Kishun alias Ram Kishun (Dead) Through LRS. Vs. Behari (Dead) By LRS., reported in (2005) 6 SCC 300, para-6 of which reads as under:-

"6. As rightly pointed out by learned counsel for the appellants and fairly agreed to by learned Senior Counsel for the respondent, the decree passed by the High Court in favour of a party who was dead and against a party who was dead, is obviously a nullity. It is conceded that the legal representatives of neither of the parties were brought on record in the second appeal and the second appeal stood abated. On this short ground this appeal is liable to be allowed and the decision of the High Court set aside. (Emphasis supplied)

Since the impugned judgment and decree passed in Title Appeal No. 12 of 2011 as well as the judgment and decree in Title Suit No. 35 of 1993 are in itself nullity, hence, this Court is of the considered view that this Second Appeal is not maintainable having been preferred against the impugned judgment which is itself admittedly a nullity.

Accordingly, this Second Appeal is dismissed, being not maintainable, having been preferred against the judgment which is a nullity.

In view of the disposal of the instant Second Appeal, this interlocutory applications stand dismissed being infructuous.

Sonu-Gunjan/-                         (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)