Supreme Court on Execution of Decree Passed in Favour of Deceased Appellants.

Headnote:

The Supreme Court held that a judgment or decree passed in favour of deceased appellants without substitution of their legal heirs is a nullity. Consequently, the decree of the trial court revives and becomes executable. The Court set aside the orders of the High Court and the executing court, restoring execution proceedings in favour of the appellant.

Background:

• The predecessor of the appellant, an ex-serviceman, was allotted agricultural land in Wardha, Maharashtra. After his death, the land was illegally re-allotted to defendants 3 to 5 by the Collector.

• The legal heirs of the original allottee filed RCS No. 181/2001, which was decreed on 14.08.2006 in their favour by declaring the re-allotment void and granting possession.

• Defendant Nos. 4 and 5 filed a first appeal under Section 96 CPC. However, Defendant No. 4 died on 27.10.2006 and Defendant No. 5 on 20.09.2010, both before the appeal was heard on 28.09.2010 and decided on 20.10.2010.

• The first appellate court modified the decree without being informed of the deaths.

• The plaintiffs’ second appeal was initially dismissed as abated but later restored and subsequently withdrawn, treating the trial court’s decree as operative.

• The executing court dismissed the execution petition, holding that the trial court’s decree had merged with the appellate decree. The High Court upheld this finding.

Court’s Observations:

• Since both appellants (defendant Nos. 4 and 5) had expired before the hearing of the appeal, the appellate decree was a nullity, as it was passed in favour of non-existent parties.

• Order XXII Rule 6 CPC applies only where death occurs after conclusion of hearing but before pronouncement of judgment—not when the party dies before hearing.

• The decree of the trial court revives automatically where the appellate decree is void.

• Citing Rajendra Prasad v. Khirodhar Mahto (1994), Amba Bai v. Gopal (2001 INSC 263), and Bibi Rahmani Khatoon v. Harkoo Gope (1981 INSC 100), the Court reiterated that a decree passed in favour of dead persons is unenforceable.

• Also relied on Kiran Singh v. Chaman Paswan (1954 INSC 45)* to reaffirm that a decree that is a nullity can be challenged at any stage, even during execution.

Legal Provisions Discussed:

• Order XXII Rules 2(2) & 6, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Effect of death of parties during proceedings.

• Article 120, Limitation Act, 1963 – Time limit for substitution of legal representatives.

• Section 96, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Appeal from original decree.

Decision:

• Orders of the executing court (21.06.2023) and High Court (11.03.2024) – Set aside.

• Execution proceedings in Regular Darkhast No. 22/2022 – Restored for decision in accordance with law.

• Parties to bear their own costs.

A decree passed in favour of deceased appellants without substitution of legal heirs is a nullity, and the decree of the trial court revives and becomes enforceable.

Citation: 2025 INSC 1283

Case: Vikram Bhalchandra Ghongade v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.

Court: Supreme Court of India

Coram: Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha & Justice Atul S. Chandurkar

Date of Decision: 06 November 2025

Civil Appeal No.: (Arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 9947 of 2024)