Jharkhand High Court
Supriya Sharma vs Sulochana Sharma on 10 September, 2024
Author: Anil Kumar Choudhary
Bench: Anil Kumar Choudhary
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
F.A. No. 105 of 2024
------
1. Supriya Sharma, W/o Late Aditya Narayan Sharma, aged about 39
years, R/o Arvind Bhawan, Near Rani Sati Mandir, Bompass Town,
P.O., P.S. & District -Deoghar.
2. Aayush Sharma, aged about 15 years,
3. Aayushi Sharma, aged about 13 years,
Both appellant nos. 2 and 3 represented through their natural
guardian i.e. mother Supriya Sharma, W/o Late Aditya Narayan
Sharma (Defendant No.2), aged about 39 years, resident of Arvind
Bhawan, Near Rani Sati Mandir, Bompass Town, P.O., P.S. &
District -Deoghar. .... .... .... Appellants
Versus
1. Sulochana Sharma, aged about not known to appellant, wife of Jugal
Kishore Sharma, resident of near Daihatta Durga Mandir, Jamalpur
P.O. & P.S. -Jamalpur, Subdivision Cum District- Munger (Bihar),
Pin-811214
2. Shayam Sunder Sharma, aged about not known to appellant, Son of
Late Indira Prakash Sharma, resident of New Millan Palli, Care Of
Laddu Gopal Sweets, P.O.+P.S.- Sililguri, Subdivision & District-
Siliguri (West Bengal) PIN - 734005
3. Sunita Devi, aged about not known to appellant, Wife of Pawan
Khandelwal, resident of in Front Of Eye Hospital, Raniganj, P.O. &
P.S. -Raniganj, Sub-Division -Durgapur, District- Burdwan (West
Bengal), PIN- 713347
4. Arvind Sharma, aged about not known to the appellant, Son of Late
Indira Prakash Sharma
5. Srikant Sharma, aged about not known to the appellant, Son of Late
Indira Prakash Sharma
6. Shashikant Sharma, aged about not known to appellant, Son of Late
Indira Prakash Sharma,
Respondent No. 4, 5 & 6 all resident of Arvind Bhawan, Beside the
Rani Sati Mandir, Bompas Town, P.O., P.S. & District -Deoghar
.... .... .... Respondents
------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
------
For the Appellants : Mr. Sameer Ranjan, Advocate
------
Order No.03 Dated- 10.09.2024
Heard the parties.
The learned counsel for the appellants submits that the
judgment and decree passed in Original Suit No. 99 of 2019 has been
passed against a dead person being the defendant no.2 -Aditya
Narayan Sharma.
The learned counsel for the appellants files the photocopy of the
death certificate of the defendant no.2 -Aditya Narayan Sharma who
died on 16.02.2022; whereas the impugned judgment has been passed
on 27th Day of March, 2023.
It is a settled principle of law that a decree passed in favour of a
party who was dead or against the party who was dead 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.
Hence this Court is of the considered view that since the
impugned judgment against which this appeal has been preferred is a
nullity having been passed against dead persons, this first appeal is
not maintainable having been preferred against the judgment which is
nullity, hence this first appeal is dismissed being not maintainable.
The learned counsel for the appellants submits that the
appellants will approach the court below for impleading the legal
representatives of the deceased defendant no.2 of Original Suit No.99
of 2019. The 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 defendant no.2 of the said Original Suit No.99 of 2019 brought
on record in that court.
In view of disposal of the first appeal, all the interlocutory
applications are disposed of being infructuous.
Sonu-Gunjan/- (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)
