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

Amendment of plaint under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC explained

Cause Title :  Ganesh Prasad vs Rajeshwar Prasad, SLP (C) NO. 28377 OF 2018, Supreme Court Of India Date of Judgment/Order : 14/3/2023 Corum : J. B. Pardiwala, J. Citied:  Revajeetu Builders and Developers v. Narayanaswamy & Sons and Others reported in (2009) 10 SCC 84 North Eastern Railway Administration, Gorakhpur v. Bhagwan Das reported in (2008) 8 SCC 511 P.A. Jayalakshmi v. H. Saradha and Others reported in (2009) 14 SCC 525 B.K. Narayana Pillai v. Parameswaran Pillai and Another reported in (2000) 1 SCC 712 A.K. Gupta and Sons Ltd. v. Damodar Valley Corporation reported in AIR 1967 SC 96 Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Sanjeev Builders Private Limited and Another, Civil Appeal No. 5909 of 2022 dated 01.09.2022 Firm Sriniwas Ram Kumar v. Mahabir Prasad and Others reported in AIR 1951 SC 177 G. Nagamma and Another v. Siromanamma and Another reported in (1996) 2 SCC 25 Praful Manohar Rele v. Krishnabai Narayan Ghosalkar and Others reported in (2014...
Post a Comment
Read more

Even An Unregistered Partnership Firm Can Maintain ‘Cheque Bounce’ Complaint

In M/s Uttam Traders Ranghri vs. Tule Ram alias Tula Ram, an appeal was filed before the Himachal Pradesh High Court solely on the ground that one of the partners of the complainant-firm which is an unregistered partnership concern, had failed to prove that he was one of the partners of the complainant-firm and duly authorised by it to file the complaint and acquitted the respondent. The High Court decided that two questions arise for consideration in this matter :- 1) Whether acquittal by the magistrate solely on the ground that the managing partner of the appellant having failed to establish that he was one of the partners of the complainant-firm and duly authorised by it to file the complaint was correct 2) Whether a partner of an unregistered partnership firm can maintain a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. For the first issue, the High Court referred to M/s Haryana State Co.Op., Supply and Marketing Federation Ltd. vs. M/s Jayam Text...
2 comments
Read more

Valuation Report of Jewellery once made is effective for Four Assessment Years

The division Bench of the Delhi High Court in Pr.Commissioner of Wealth Tax vs. Raghu Hari Dalmia held that a valuation report made by a registered valuer once adopted shall be in effect for four assessment years unless an event has occurred whereby the value is increased or decreased. The High Court made it clear that the event of “search” under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 cannot compel the assessee to undertake a fresh valuation.
2 comments
Read more