Dismissed

Sachidanand Dhar Dubey And Ors. v. Vishun Deo Ram And Ors.

Jharkhand HC2 Mar 2023SA/439/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court dismissed a second appeal as not maintainable because the impugned judgment and decree of Title Appeal No. 08 of 2004 was passed against a deceased respondent, rendering it a nullity. Consequently, an interim application to substitute legal representatives was held infructuous and disposed of.

What did the court decide?

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

Sachidanand Dhar Dubey And Ors. Vs Vishun Deo… — Succession and Inheritance | Jharkhand HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI S.A. No. 439 of 2016

¶2

------

¶3

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY

¶4

For the Appellants : Mr. Manoj Kr. Choubey, Advocate For the Respondents : None

¶5

Order No.12 Dated- 02.03.2023

¶6

I.A. No.11585 of 2022

¶7

Learned counsel for the appellants submits that this interlocutory application has been filed with a prayer to substitute the legal representatives of the deceased respondent no. 1- Vishun Deo Ram who died on 02.11.2012 during the pendency of Title Appeal No. 08 of 2004 dated 16.06.2016, the judgment and decree of which is impugned in this second appeal. Hence admittedly, the impugned judgment and decree of Title Appeal No.08 of 2004 has been passed against a dead person. So the impugned judgment and decree is a nullity.

¶8

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:-

¶9

“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.

¶10

Hence this Court is of the considered view that since the impugned judgment against which this appeal has been preferred is a

¶11

nullity having been passed against 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.

¶12

In view of the dismissal of this second appeal, all the interlocutory applications are disposed of being infructuous.

¶13

(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J . )

¶14

Sonu-Gunjan/-

Sachidanand Dhar Dubey And Ors. v. Vishun Deo Ram And Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sachidanand Dhar Dubey And Ors. v. Vishun Deo Ram And Ors.

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

Thanu Gope Vs Baleshwar Yadav

Smt Chintamani Devi Vs State of Jharkhand through the Deputy Commissioner

Chaya Singh Vs Sumitra Devi

Ram Prit Ram And Ors. Vs Kaushal Kishore Ram And Ors.

Aseema Rani Sen Vs Ms Cosmos Merchantile Pvt. Ltd. Ic Vivek Kejriwal

Rezan Topno Vs Sudhar Barjo