ECHOES BEYOND THE GRAVE: WHEN DEAD LITIGANTS NULLIFY JUSTICE INTRODUCTION

In Vikram Bhalchandra Ghongade v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors., 2025 INSC 1283, the Supreme Court of India, through a Bench comprising Justices Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Atul S. Chandurkar, examined a striking question of civil procedural law — whether a decree passed in favour of deceased appellants, without substitution of legal heirs, holds any legal sanctity. Decided on 6 November 2025, the Judgment reiterates that a decree passed in favour of dead persons is a nullity, incapable of execution and that the original decree revives automatically.

BRIEF FACTS
The dispute originated when the predecessor of the Appellant, Mr. Arjunrao Thakre, an ex-army serviceman, was allotted agricultural land in Wardha, Maharashtra. After his demise, the land was allegedly re-allotted to other parties. His legal heirs (Original Plaintiffs) filed a Civil Suit, seeking a declaration that the re-allotment was illegal.
On 14 August 2006, the Trial Court decreed the suit, declaring the Plaintiffs as owners of the land and granting them possession. Aggrieved, Defendants 4 and 5 filed a First Appeal under Section 96 CPC. However, both Appellants died during pendency of the Appeal — Defendant No. 4 on 27 October 2006 and Defendant No. 5 on 20 September 2010 — before the hearing concluded.
Unaware of these deaths, the first Appellate Court heard the matter on 28 September 2010 and modified the Decree on 20 October 2010, granting partial relief. The Plaintiffs’ Second Appeal under Section 100 CPC was initially dismissed as abated but later restored, only to be withdrawn. When the Appellant sought to execute the Trial Court’s Decree, the Executing Court dismissed the Application, reasoning that the decree had merged with that of the Appellate Court. The High Court affirmed this decision, prompting the present Appeal.

ISSUES OF LAW
1)Whether an appellate decree passed after the death of all appellants, without substitution of their legal heirs, is a nullity in law.
2)Whether the decree of the trial court revives for execution when the appellate decree is found to be null.
3)Whether the executing court erred in holding that the decree of the first appellate court superseded the trial court’s decree.

ANALYSIS OF THE JUDGMENT
The Supreme Court set aside the Orders of both the High Court and the Executing Court, holding that the Appeal before the First Appellate Court had abated upon the death of Defendants 4 and 5, as their legal heirs were not brought on record.
Relying on Order XXII Rules 2(2) and 6 CPC, the Court clarified that the saving under Rule 6 — where a judgment remains valid if a party dies after conclusion of the hearing — was inapplicable since both Appellants had died before the hearing on 28 September 2010. Consequently, the Appellate Decree dated 20 October 2010 was rendered non est in the eyes of law.
The Bench referred to precedents including Rajendra Prasad v. Khirodhar Mahto (1994), Amba Bai v. Gopal (2001 INSC 263), and Bibi Rahmani Khatoon v. Harkoo Gope (1981 INSC 100), reaffirming that adjudications in favour of dead persons are void and unenforceable. The Court further invoked Kiran Singh v. Chaman Paswan (1954 INSC 45), reiterating that a null decree’s invalidity can be raised even at the stage of execution.
Thus, the Trial Court’s Decree dated 14 August 2006 was restored as the operative decree, capable of execution. The Supreme Court observed that no effort was ever made by the heirs of the deceased Appellants to appear, either before the lower courts or before the Supreme Court, further affirming the Appellant’s entitlement to execute the original decree.

CONCLUSION
The Judgment in Vikram Bhalchandra Ghongade underscores a fundamental procedural safeguard — justice cannot be pronounced in favour of the dead. The Supreme Court’s intervention corrected the mechanical approach of the lower courts and reaffirmed that abatement is not a mere technicality but a substantive event that extinguishes pending proceedings.
By declaring that a decree passed in favour of deceased appellants is a legal nullity, the Court restored the sanctity of due process and upheld the doctrine that the dead cannot litigate, nor can judgments breathe life into lifeless appeals.

SARTHAK KALRA
Senior Legal Associate
The Indian Lawyer & Allied Services

Please log onto our YouTube channel, The Indian Lawyer Legal Tips, to learn about various aspects of the law. Our latest Video, titled “Startup Funding Laws in India Explained | Legal Guide by Advocate Sushila Ram Varma|” can be viewed at the link below: