Skip to main content

When Does Death Of A Co-Appellant Result In The Abatement Of Appeal As A Whole?

In CIVIL APPEAL NO.4103 OF 2008, HEMAREDDI vs RAMACHANDRA YALLAPPA HOSMANI, an appeal was brought before the Supreme Court out of a suit which was instituted by two brothers jointly for declaration that the adoption of the first defendant was invalid and therefore he had no right in the joint properties of the plaintiffs. The trial court dismissed the Courts will not proceed with an appeal: (a) when the success of the appeal may lead to the Court's coming to a decision which be in conflict with the decision between the appellant and the deceased respondent and therefore which would lead to the Court's passing a decree which will be contradictory to the decree which had become final with respect to the same subject suit. The matter was taken in appeal to the High Court. During the pendency of appeal, one of the brothers died. But no steps were taken to bring on record the legal representatives of the deceased brother. The appeal was continued by the surviving brother. The High Court dismissed the appeal holding that entire appeal stood abated as a whole, as the abatement in respect of the deceased brother was not set aside and his legal representatives were not brought on record. Challenging this, appeal was filed in the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court surveyed a lot of precedents which discussed the circumstances under which the abatement as against one of the parties operated against the appeal as a whole and came to the conclusion that there is no doubt that when in a suit filed by one or more litigants, and one of the dies, if the legal representative of the deceased litigant does not substitute themselves in the suit within stipulated time, the appeal would abate for the legal representative of the deceased litigant. As for the question of the status of the other litigant(s) in a situation where appeal has abated for the deceased litigant, the Supreme Court took the view that in such a situation it would have to be seen that if the appeal is allowed to be continued with the surviving litigant, it must be ensured that the final decree is not unfair to the deceased litigant. Therefore each issue should be considered on case to case basis and that in the current matter the right which was set up by the appellant alongwith his late brother was joint. It was not a case where their claims were distinct claims. If the High Court were to allow the appeal of one of the brothers, it would be contradictory to the decree of the trial court as against the deceased brother, which had attained finality. Thus, there would be two decrees, one upholding the adoption and another invalidating the adoption, in the same proceeding. That is impermissible in law.

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Michigan House Approves 'Right-to-Work' Bill

Amid raucous protests, the Republican-led Michigan House approved a contentious right-to-work bill on  Dec 11 limiting unions' strength in the state where the (Union for American Auto Workers)  UAW was born. The chamber passed a measure dealing with public-sector workers 58-51 as protesters shouted "shame on you" from the gallery and huge crowds of union backers massed in the state Capitol halls and on the grounds. Backers said a right-to-work law would bring more jobs to Michigan and give workers freedom. Critics said it would drive down wages and benefits. The right-to-work movement has been growing in the country since Wisconsin fought a similar battle with unions over two years ago. Michigan would become the 24th state to enact right-to-work provisions, and passage of the legislation would deal a stunning blow to the power of organized labor in the United States. Wisconsin Republicans in 2011 passed laws severely restricting the power of public s...
Post a Comment
Read more

Power to re-assess by AO and disclosure of material facts

In AVTEC Limited v. DCIT, the division of the Delhi High Court held that AO is bound to look at the litigation history of the assessee and cannot expect the assessee to inform him.  In the instant case, the Petitioner, engaged in the business of manufacturing and selling of automobiles, power trains and power shift transmissions along with their components, approached the High Court challenging the re-assessment order passed against them. For the year 2006-07, the Petitioner entered into a Business Transfer Agreement with Hindustan Motors Ltd, as per which, the Petitioner took over the business from HML.  While filing income tax return for the said year, the petitioner claimed the expenses incurred in respect of professional and legal charges for the purpose of taking over of the business from HML as capital expenses and claimed depreciation. Article referred: http://www.taxscan.in/assessing-officer-bound-look-litigation-history-assessee-delhi-hc-read-order/8087/
Post a Comment
Read more

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...
7 comments
Read more