Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court of India heard two civil appeals arising from a judgment of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh which confirmed a trial court decree in a suit for declaration of title and possession. The original plaintiff, Yendru Sathiraju, filed Original Suit No. 175 of 1987 seeking declaration of title over three sets of properties (Schedule A, B, and C) and recovery of possession from the defendants, who were three real brothers. The trial court partly decreed the suit, declaring the plaintiff's title over Schedule A and B properties and ordering possession, but dismissed the claim for Schedule C properties. The defendants appealed to the High Court, and the plaintiff filed cross-objections regarding Schedule C properties. The High Court dismissed both the appeal and cross-objections, confirming the trial court's decree. The defendants then filed Special Leave Petition (SLP) No. 9401 of 2006, and the plaintiff filed SLP No. 19919 of 2006. During the pendency of the SLPs, appellant no. 2 (defendant no. 2) died on 21st February 2006. His legal representatives were not brought on record, and the Chamber Judge on 24th July 2009 declared the appeal abated qua appellant no. 2. Subsequently, this Court granted leave and converted the SLPs into civil appeals. The respondents raised a preliminary objection that the appeals had abated in toto due to the death of appellant no. 2 and the failure to substitute his legal representatives. The appellants argued that appellant nos. 1 and 3 had distinct and separate rights in the suit properties, which they had inter se divided, and that the court had power under Order 41 Rule 4 CPC to do substantial justice. The Court examined the principles of abatement under Order 22 Rules 4 and 9 CPC. It noted that the defendants claimed as co-owners from a common ancestor, each entitled to an equal undivided share, and their rights were joint and not distinct. The Court held that if the remaining appellants were to succeed, it would result in two inconsistent decrees: one against appellant no. 2 (whose appeal had abated) and another in favor of appellant nos. 1 and 3. Since the properties were not demarcated, the plaintiff could not enforce the decree against appellant no. 2 without affecting the rights of the other defendants. Therefore, the appeal abated in toto. The Court dismissed the appeals as abated, with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Abatement of Appeal - Order 22 Rule 4(3) CPC - Failure to Substitute Legal Representatives - Where a defendant dies and no application is made to bring his legal representatives on record within the prescribed time, the appeal abates as against that defendant. In the present case, appellant no. 2 died on 21st February 2006, and his legal representatives were not brought on record; the Chamber Judge declared the appeal abated qua him on 24th July 2009. (Paras 2-3, 7, 11) B) Civil Procedure - Effect of Abatement - Order 22 Rule 9 CPC - Inconsistent Decrees - If the remaining appellants were to succeed, there would be two mutually inconsistent decrees: one decree in favor of the plaintiff against appellant no. 2 (whose appeal has abated) and another decree in favor of the remaining appellants. Since the defendants claimed as co-owners with equal undivided shares from a common ancestor, the decree cannot be enforced without impinging on the rights of the other defendants. (Paras 12, 17-18) C) Civil Procedure - Abatement in Toto - Joint Rights - Where the rights of the defendants are joint and indivisible, abatement qua one defendant results in abatement of the entire appeal. The Court held that the appeal abates in toto because the defendants' rights were not distinct and separate; they claimed as co-owners from a common ancestor. (Paras 10, 17-18) D) Civil Procedure - Order 41 Rule 4 CPC - Power of Appellate Court - The power under Order 41 Rule 4 CPC to reverse or vary a decree in favor of all or any of the parties cannot be exercised where the appeal has abated against one of the defendants and the decree has become final as against him, as it would lead to inconsistent decrees. (Paras 14, 18)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the civil appeals have abated in toto due to the death of appellant no. 2 and failure to bring his legal representatives on record, and whether the remaining appellants can prosecute the appeals without resulting in inconsistent decrees.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court held that the appeals abated in toto due to the death of appellant no. 2 and failure to substitute his legal representatives. The appeals were dismissed as abated, with no order as to costs.
Law Points
- Abatement of appeal
- Order 22 Rule 4 CPC
- Order 22 Rule 9 CPC
- Order 41 Rule 4 CPC
- Inconsistent decrees
- Joint rights
- Substantial justice
