‘Judgement passed against a dead person is a nullity’

NT Correspondent

Bengaluru

The High Court of Karnataka has remanded a property dispute back to a lower court to be adjudicated afresh after it found that the legal representatives of a dead person were not made parties to the case. The lower court had passed the judgement in favour of the dead person.

“It is settled principles of law and require no emphasis that a judgement passed against a dead person is a nullity. Therefore, invariably the 1st substantial question of law raised at the time of admitting the appeal needs to be answered in the affirmative and accordingly it is answered,” the HC said.

The substantial question of law the HC answered t h u s w a s “Whether the judgement and decree passed by the lower appellate court is a nullity for having passed the same without bringing the LRs of the sole appellant before the court below, who is said to have died during the pendency of the appeal before the lower appellate court?”

The appeal in the HC was filed by four persons, all residents of Ramdurg in Belgavai. The respondent in the appeal was Maheshgouda.

The appeal in the HC was filed in 2007 and when it came up for hearing recently, the advocate for the petitioners informed the court that Maheshgouda had died even before the lower court passed its judgement in October 2007.

But since they did not have information about it, the lower court had not been informed about it. Only after they filed the appeal in the HC did they realise that Maheshgouda had died. The HC in its judgement said, “In view of the same, matter requires to be remanded to the trial Court with liberty for the legal representatives of Maheshgouda to file necessary application to bring the legal representatives of Maheshgoud on record and proceed with the case in accordance with law.”

The HC further said that the lower court should consider the issue liberally. “However it is made clear that if an application is filed by the legal representatives of Maheshgouda to come on record, having regard to the case involving the rights in respect of immovable property, the first appellate Court shall consider the same liberally in accordance with law,” the HC said.

The second question before the HC bench of Justice V Srishananda was “Whether the judgement and decree passed by the lower appellate Court, reversing the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court, is perverse and capricious?” But it was unnecessary to be addressed.

“In view of the answer of this Court on question of law No.1 of the above substantial question of law, it is unnecessary to answer the 2nd substantial question of law and accordingly the same is is not answered,” the HC said.