Supreme Court Holds First Appeal Decree Passed in Favour of Dead Appellants Is a Nullity—Trial Court Decree Revives for Execution

Case Name: Vikram Bhalchandra Ghongade v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.
Citation: Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 9947 of 2024; 2025 INSC 1283
Date of Judgment/Order: 06 November 2025
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha & Hon’ble Mr. Justice Atul S. Chandurkar

Held: The Supreme Court held that the decree passed by the first appellate court was a nullity, as both appellants (defendant Nos. 4 and 5) had died before the appeal was heard and decided, and their legal heirs were never brought on record. Since a decree passed in favour of dead persons is void and has no legal force, the only enforceable decree was the original decree passed by the trial court on 14.08.2006. The executing court therefore erred in rejecting execution and the High Court wrongly affirmed that order.

Summary: The dispute concerned agricultural land originally allotted to an ex-army serviceman, Mr. Arjunrao Thakre. After his death, the land was illegally re-allotted to defendant Nos. 3–5. The plaintiffs successfully obtained a decree from the trial court declaring the re-allotment void and restoring ownership and possession in their favour. Defendant Nos. 4 and 5 alone filed a first appeal. However, defendant No. 4 died in 2006 and defendant No. 5 died in 2010—both before the appeal was heard on 28.09.2010. Their deaths were never disclosed. The appellate court nevertheless decided the appeal on merits on 20.10.2010 and modified the decree. When the plaintiffs moved the executing court in 2022 to execute the original decree, the executing court refused, holding that the first appellate decree superseded the trial court decree because the period of 90 days for substitution had not expired when the appellate judgment was delivered. Both the executing court and the High Court rejected the plea that the first appeal had abated. Before the Supreme Court, the appellant argued that a decree passed in favour of deceased appellants is void, relying on Rajendra Prasad, Amba Bai, and Bibi Rahmani Khatoon. The Court accepted this contention, holding that Order XXII Rule 6 CPC cannot save an appeal where the party dies before the hearing; thus the first appellate decree was non est.

Decision: The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, held that the first appellate decree dated 20.10.2010 was a nullity, and restored the trial court decree dated 14.08.2006 for execution. It set aside the orders of the executing court and the High Court, revived the execution proceedings, and directed the executing court to proceed in accordance with law. All parties were left to bear their own costs.