CAUSE TITLE:
Siravarapu Appa Rao & Ors. Vs. Dokala Appa Rao
DATE OF ORDER:
11 October 2022
JUDGE(S):
HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE U.U. LALIT, S. RAVINDRA BHAT, SUDHANSHU DHULIA
PARTIES:
Appellant(s): SIRAVARAPU APPA RAO & ORS.
Respondent: DOKALA APPA RAO
SUBJECT
The present appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 16.03.2017 passed by the High Court of Judicature of Hyderabad dismissing the second appeal and held that the judgment and decree of the trial court stand nullified by reason of the death of one of the plaintiffs and that the suit stood abated.
IMPORTANT PROVISIONS
CPC, ORDER XXII, RULE 2
2. Procedure where one of several plaintiffs or defendants dies and right to sue survives.— Where there are more plaintiffs or defendants than one, and any of them dies, and where the right to sue survives to the surviving plaintiff or plaintiffs alone, or against the surviving defendant or defendants alone, the Court shall cause an entry to the effect to be made on the record,. and the suit shall proceed at the instance of the surviving plaintiff or plaintiffs, or against the surviving defendant or defendants.
BRIEF FACTS
- Appellant nos. 1-4 are brothers and appellant 5 is their sister. The appellants had jointly filed a suit with one Vemala Chanti for a declaration of title and recovery of possession against the respondent herein before the Junior Civil Judge (hereinafter referred to as `the Civil Court’) stating that the father of the respondent was a licensee on the schedule property and after his death, the respondent continues to be in unauthorized possession of the suit property.
- During the pendency of the suit one of the sisters of the appellants, Vemala Chanti passed away and her legal representatives were not brought on record. Regardless, the civil court decided the suit in favor of the appellants.
- The aforementioned judgment and decree were challenged by the respondent by way of first appeal before the Additional District Judge (hereinafter referred to as ‘First Appellate Court’). The first appellate court allowed the appeal on the ground that as the claim was made jointly by Vemala Chanti and the appellants, and the legal representatives of Vemala Chanti were not brought on record, the suit stood abated qua all the appellants and the decree obtained by the appellants therein is a nullity.
- Appellants aggrieved by this decision, filed a second appeal before the High Court which was dismissed on the same grounds.
QUESTION OF LAW
Whether on the non-substitution of legal representatives of some of the plaintiff – owners of the land and/or whether on demise of the some of the respondents during the pendency of the first appeal, the entire appeal would stand abated or it will be so only in respect of the particular deceased respondent.
ANALYSIS
- The Hon’ble supreme court analysed many of its previous decisions to hold that this question would be answered in favour of the plaintiffs-appellants relying upon the judgment in the case of Delhi Development Authority vs. Diwan Chand Anand and Others.
- The court held that where there are more than one plaintiffs, the suit will not entirely abate on death of one of the plaintiffs.
CONCLUSIONS
The court however, did not go into the merits of the case and directed the parties to appear before the first appellate court. The court further directed that the status quo order passed by this Court on 22.09.2017 to be maintained until disposal of the first appeal.
Click here to download the original copy of the judgement
Learn the practical aspects of CrPC HERE, CPC HERE, IPC HERE, Evidence Act HERE, Family Laws HERE, DV Act HERE
