Dismissed

Kishun Raut and Ors. v. Union of India through Administrator

Jharkhand HC22 Mar 2023SA/26/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This second appeal was dismissed as not maintainable because the impugned judgment and decree were passed in favour of a deceased person, rendering them a nullity per settled precedent. Interlocutory applications were deemed infructuous.

What did the court decide?

The second appeal was dismissed as not maintainable; interlocutory applications disposed of as infructuous.

Kishun Raut and Ors. Vs Union of India through… — Maintenance and Alimony | Jharkhand HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI SA No. 26 of 2018

¶2

Kishun Raut & Ors. ...… Appellants

¶3

Versus

¶4

Union of India through Administrator Rehabilitaiton, Finance, Administration, Union Church, New Delhi

¶5

......… Respondents

¶6

Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY

¶7

For the Appellants : Mr. Ranjan Kr. Singh , Adv.

¶8

06 / 22.03.2023 I.A. No. 8421 of 2018 and 8422 of 2018

¶9

Heard the learned counsel for the appellants.

¶10

Learned counsel for the appellants submits that impugned judgment and decree in Civil Appeal no. 32 of 2014, has been passed in respect of a dead person, Kaushliya Devi, who is appellant no. 4 herein, and who died on 01.08.2015, during pendency of the Civil Appeal no. 32 of 2014 before learned First Appellate court below.

¶11

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:-

¶12

“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

¶13

aside.”

¶14

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 in favour of a dead person, this second appeal is not maintainable having been preferred against the judgment which is nullity, hence this second appeal is dismissed being not maintainable.

¶15

The learned counsel for the appellants submits that the appellants will approach the first appellate court for impleading the legal representatives of the deceased appellant no. 4. 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 appellant no. 4 brought on record in that court.

¶16

In view of disposal of the Second Appeal, all the interlocutory applications are disposed of being infructuous.

¶17

( ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.)

¶18

Smita/-

Kishun Raut and Ors. v. Union of India through Administrator

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kishun Raut and Ors. v. Union of India through Administrator

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ashwath Ram Vs the State of Jharkhand through the Principal Secretary

Avijit Ghosh Vs the State of Jharkhand

Anu Sharma Vs the State of Jharkhand

Sofi Kuer Vs Most Bimla Kuer

Subodh Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand

Vijay Yadav Alias Vijay Yadab Vs the State of Jharkhand