Allowed
Thayumanavar (died) 1.Mythili v. Manikkampillai
Madras HCREV.APLC(MD)/81/2025
Case brief
from the order text
What is this about?
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH…
What the court decided
AI extract
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
REV.APLC(MD)No.81 of 2025
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
RESERVED ON: 12.11.2025
PRONOUNCED ON: 28.11.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.MURALI SHANKAR
REV.APLC(MD)No.81 of 2025 in S.A(MD)No.318 of 2019
Thayumanavar (died) : Nil/ Appellant
5.Kumarmurugan : Petitioners/LRs of the sole appellant Vs.
1.Manikkampillai 2.N.Gayathri : Respondents
(cause title is accepted vide Court order, dated 02.04.2025 made in CMP(MD)No.5278 of 2025 in Rev.Aplc(MD)SR No.8963/2025)
1/10
REV.APLC(MD)No.81 of 2025
PRAYER:- Review Application filed under Order XLVII Rule 1 and Section 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure, to review the decree and judgment, dated 29.07.2024 made in S.A(MD)No.318 of 2019.
For Petitioners :Mr.K.Prabhakar
For Respondents : No Appearance.
ORDER
The Review Application is directed against the judgment made in S.A(MD)No.318 of 2019, dated 29.07.2024 on the file of this Court, which is directed against the judgment and decree pased in A.S.No.3 of 2018, dated 11.09.2018 on the file of the Principal District Court, Tiruchirappalli, modifying the judgment and decree made in O.S.No.115 of 2016 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Thuraiyur.
REV.APLC(MD)No.81 of 2025
second defendant filed a written statement disputing the case of the plaintiff. After full trial, the learned Subordinate Judge passed the judgment and decree, dated 30.10.2017, dismissing the suit with regard to the relief of specific performance of sale agreement, but decreed the suit, directing the first defendant to refund the amount of Rs.5 lakhs with interest and costs. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the plaintiff preferred the appeal in A.S.No.3 of 2018 on the file of the learned Principal District Judge, Tiruchirappalli.
4.Challenging the said judgment and decree passed by the learned first appellate Judge, the plaintiff preferred the second appeal in S.A(MD)No.318 of 2019. The respondents in the second appeal, who are the defendants, 3/10
REV.APLC(MD)No.81 of 2025
despite receipt of notice had not turned up. This Court upon hearing the arguments of the appellant side and on perusing the materials available on record passed the impugned judgment, dated 29.07.2024, allowing the second appeal and thereby setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the first appellate Court and decreed the suit granting the relief of specific performance of the sale agreement, dated 29.03.2012 and directed the plaintiff to deposit Rs.2 lakhs with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of the suit till the date of deposit before the trial Court within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment and on such payment / deposit, the respondens/defendants are directed to execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff within a period of one month from the date of payment / deposit. If deposit already made, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of the said judgment.
REV.APLC(MD)No.81 of 2025
that their father is survived by the review applicants; that since their father was personally handling the case, they had no knowledge of it; that they came to know when their counsel had addressed a letter to their father at the time of final hearing, but the letter is not traceable; that the said counsel had written another letter to their father after the judgment was pronounced and only thereafter, they came to know that the matter had been finally disposed of; that they could not take steps to inform the Court about their father demise at the appropriate time and hence, steps could not be taken to implead them in the matter; that the petitioners are advised that unless the judgment and decree reflects the applicants as parties, the decree would be inexecutable and that therefore, they are constrained to file the present review petition.
5/10
REV.APLC(MD)No.81 of 2025
REV.APLC(MD)No.81 of 2025
and consequently to the Court. Since the death was not reported, this Court passed the impugned judgment and decree as if the appellant was alive.
“ 3.The learned counsel for the petitioner relying on the two decisions reported in Himangshu Bhusan Kar v. Manindra Mohan Baha, AIR 1954 Cal 205 and Raddulal Bhurmal v. Mahabirprasad Bisesar Kalwar, AIR 1959 Bom 384, contended that a decree passed in favour of a dead person is not a nullity, and the fact of death not brought to the notice of the Court when it passed the decree is only an irregularity and it cannot have the effect of making the decree void ab initio and the decree is executable. Where the Court proceeds with the case in ignorance of the fact of death of a person and passes a decree, that decree cannot be treated as a nullity. It may, no doubt, be a wrong decree, but it will have to be set aside by taking appropriate proceedings like appeal, revision or review. Generally speaking, a decree passed in favour of a dead person is not a nullity, though a decree passed against a dead person can be construed as a nullity. Even if there
7/10
REV.APLC(MD)No.81 of 2025
is abatement of the suit, that would not make the decree passed in the suit as one without jurisdiction and the executing Court is not entitled to refuse to execute the decree on the ground that the plaintiff was not alive on the date when the decree was passed in his favour.
5. As the decree passed in ignorance of the death of the plaintiff is a mere irregularity and cannot have the effect of making the decree as one without jurisdiction, the lower appellate Court's finding that the decree is void ab initio is clearly erroneous. ”
13.Admittedly, in the second appeal, despite the death of the appellant, his legal representatives were not brought on record. The learned counsel for
8/10
REV.APLC(MD)No.81 of 2025
the review petitioners would submit that the decree as it stands now cannot be executed as the decree holder is not alive.
28.11.2025
NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes/No Internet: Yes/No das
9/10
REV.APLC(MD)No.81 of 2025
K.MURALI SHANKAR,J.
DAS
To
1.The Principal District Judge, Tiruchirappalli.
3.The Section Officer, Vernacular Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
PRE-DELIVERY JUDGMENT MADE IN REV.APLC(MD)No.81 of 2025 in S.A(MD)No.318 of 2019
28.11.2025
10/10
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Abdul Azeez Sahib Vs. Dhanabagiammal and othersRelied on¶11
AIR 1983 Mad 5 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Thayumanavar (died) - LRs: Mythili, Malathi, Vijayalakshmi, Nithyakal Kalyani, Kumarmurugan
Manikkampillai
N.Gayathri
K.Murali Shankar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court