The Supreme Court of India, in a judgment delivered on November 6, 2025, has ruled that a decree passed by an appellate court in favour of appellants who had died prior to the hearing of the appeal is a “nullity.” The Court held that in such circumstances, the original decree passed by the trial court revives and becomes executable.
The bench, comprising Justice P. S. Narasimha and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar, allowed a civil appeal filed by the legal heir of original plaintiffs whose execution proceedings for a 2006 trial court decree had been dismissed by both the executing court and the High Court. The lower courts had held that the trial court’s decree had merged with a subsequent, modified decree from a first appellate court.
The Supreme Court set aside the orders of the High Court and the executing court, restoring the execution proceedings for the original trial court decree.
Background of the Case
The case originates from a suit (RCS No.181 of 2001) filed by the legal heirs of late Mr. Arjunrao Thakre, an Ex-Army Serviceman, who was allotted agricultural land in District Wardha, Maharashtra. After his death, the land was allegedly re-allotted by the Collector to defendant Nos. 3 to 5.
On August 14, 2006, the trial court decreed the suit, declaring the re-allotment to defendants 3-5 illegal and affirming the plaintiffs as the owners entitled to possession.
Defendant Nos. 4 and 5 challenged this decree by filing a first appeal. During the pendency of this appeal, defendant No. 4 died on October 27, 2006, and defendant No. 5 died on September 20, 2010.
The first appellate court heard arguments on September 28, 2010—after both appellants had died—and partly allowed the appeal on October 20, 2010, modifying the trial court’s decree. This fact of the appellants’ deaths was not brought to the first appellate court’s notice.
The original plaintiffs (predecessors of the current appellant) filed a second appeal, which was initially disposed of as abated. They sought restoration, arguing the first appeal judgment was a nullity as it was passed after the appellants therein had died. The High Court, noting these facts on December 3, 2012, restored the second appeal. The plaintiffs subsequently withdrew the second appeal, proceeding on the basis that the trial court’s judgment was in operation.
The appellant, Mr. Vikram Bhalchandra Ghongade, later filed execution proceedings (Regular Darkhast No.22 of 2022) to execute the original trial court decree of 14.08.2006.
The executing court dismissed this application. It reasoned that since defendant No. 5 died on 20.09.2010 and the appeal was decided on 20.10.2010—before the 90-day limitation period for bringing legal heirs on record expired—the appeal had not abated. Thus, the executing court held the trial court decree had merged with the modified appellate decree. The High Court upheld this order on March 11, 2024, leading to the appeal before the Supreme Court.
Arguments Before the Supreme Court
The appellant, appearing in-person, argued that since both appellants (defendant Nos. 4 and 5) had expired before the first appeal was heard (28.09.2010) and decided (20.10.2010), the resulting judgment was a “nullity.” He contended that the provisions of Order XXII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure (which saves a judgment pronounced after a party’s death if the death occurred after conclusion of hearing but before pronouncement) did not apply. He asserted that the trial court’s decree was the only valid decree holding the field.
The counsel for the respondents supported the High Court and executing court orders, arguing that the trial court decree had been modified and only the modified decree could be executed.
Supreme Court’s Analysis and Decision
The Supreme Court, in the judgment authored by Justice Atul S. Chandurkar, found that the executing court had erred. The bench held, “The decree passed by the first appellate Court having been passed in an appeal, where both the appellants had expired prior to the appeal being heard, its decree in favour of dead persons was a nullity. The decree passed by the trial Court, therefore, is liable to be executed.”
The Court confirmed that Order XXII Rule 6 of the Code did not save the proceedings. “In view of the fact that the defendant Nos.4 and 5 had died prior to the appeal being heard on 28.09.2010, it is evident that the proceedings in the said appeal are not saved by the provisions of Order XXII Rule 6 of the Code,” the judgment stated.
The Supreme Court addressed the executing court’s reasoning regarding the 90-day abatement period. The bench observed, “Notwithstanding this position [that abatement occurs after 90 days], the fact remains that prior to the appeal being heard and thereafter decided, both the appellants who had filed the said appeal were no more. The judgment pronounced in the first appeal on 20.10.2010 was, thus, in favour of the parties who were no more alive. The said adjudication, therefore, amounted to a nullity and the same did not have the force of law.” The Court cited Rajendra Prasad and another vs. Khirodhar Mahto and others and Amba Bai and others vs. Gopal and Others in support.
As a result, the Court found, “the only decree that could be enforced was the one passed by the trial Court on 14.08.2006.”
The bench further relied on Bibi Rahmani Khatoon and others vs. Harkoo Gope and others, which held that if an appeal abates, the judgment under appeal becomes final. The Supreme Court applied this principle, stating: “…the same position would arise when the appellant/s expires prior to hearing of the appeal… In the case in hand, the judgment in favour of the deceased appellants would be a nullity in the absence of the legal heirs being brought on record and the judgment of the trial Court would be the one that would govern the rights of the parties. Hence, the decree passed by the trial Court would revive for being executed.”
The Court affirmed that the invalidity of a null decree can be raised at any stage, including execution, citing Kiran Singh and others vs. Chaman Paswan and others.
The Supreme Court also noted that the legal heirs of defendant Nos. 4 and 5 had never taken steps to be impleaded, and the contest by defendant No. 3 (respondent No. 3) was “of no avail” as he had never challenged the trial court decree.
In conclusion, the Court held, “The appellant would be entitled to seek execution of the decree passed in Regular Civil Suit No. 181 of 2001.” The orders of the executing court (21.06.2023) and the High Court (11.03.2024) were set aside, and the execution proceedings were restored.
