Savitri Devi & Others vs Hare Ram Singh & Others
2023 Latest Caselaw 2477 Jhar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                     F.A. No.67 of 2023
                             ------

Savitri Devi & Others .... .... .... Appellants Versus Hare Ram Singh & Others .... .... .... Respondents

------

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY

------

For the Appellants : Mr. Dilip Kr. Chakraverty, Advocate

------

Order No.04 Dated- 31/07/2023 Heard the learned counsel for the appellants. Perusal of the record further reveals that the respondent No.1 namely Kedar Prasad of Miscellaneous Case No.21 of 2015 of the court of Civil Judge, (Sr. Division), Jamshedpur died on 18.06.2019 i.e. during the pendency of the said Miscellaneous Case No.21 of 2015 and the judgment of the said Miscellaneous Case No.21 of 2015 was passed on 23.12.2022 which was passed against a dead person being respondent No.1 namely Kedar Prasad of Miscellaneous Case No.21 of 2015. Hence, the impugned judgment in Miscellaneous Case No.21 of 2015 has been passed against a dead person.

It is a settled principle of law that the decree passed in favour or against a dead person is a nullity as has been observed 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.

Since the impugned judgment and decree itself is admittedly a nullity having been passed in respect of a dead person, hence, this Court is of the considered opinion that this First Appeal is not maintainable having been preferred against the impugned judgment which is itself admittedly a nullity.

Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the appellants will approach the learned First Appellate Court for incorporating the legal representatives of the respondent No.1 namely Kedar Prasad of Miscellaneous Case No.21 of 2015. Learned counsel for the appellants also places before this Court the order passed by a coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Alimuddin Ansari Vs. Wasia Khatoon, reported in (2004) 4 JCR 700 (Jhr).

It is made clear that this order will not stand in the way of the appellants taking such steps as are permissible in law in the lower court to have the decree reopened and to have the legal representatives of the respondent No.1 namely Kedar Prasad of Miscellaneous Case No.21 of 2015 brought on record in that court.

Accordingly, this First Appeal is dismissed, being not maintainable.

Animesh/                                   (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)