LexJALADI SUGUNA (DECEASED) THROUGH LRS. versus SATYA SAI CENTRAL TRUST & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
B
(2008) 7 S.C.R. 734
JALADI SUGUNA (DECEASED) THROUGH LRS.
V.
SATYA SAi CENTRAL TRUST & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 3375 of 2008)
MAY 5, 2008
(R.V. RAVEENDRAN AND LOKESHWAR SINGH
PANTA, JJ.)
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908:
C
Or. 22 rr. 4 and 5 - Determination of question as to legal
representative - Appeal before High Court by defendant -
Death of plaintiff-respondent - High Court hearing the main
appeal without first deciding the question of legal
representative - HELD: Where respondent-plaintiff who has
D succeeded in a suit, dies during pendency of the appeal, any
judgment rendered on hearing the appeal filed by the
defendant, without bringing legal representatives of deceased
respondent-plaintiff on record, will be a nullity - Provisions
of Rules 4 and 5 of Order 22 are mandatory - When a
E respondent in an appeal dies, Court cannot simply say that it
will hear all rival claimants to estate of deceased respondent
and proceed to dispose of the appeal - Nor can it implead all
persons claiming to be legal representatives, as parties to
appeal without deciding who will represent the estate of the
F deceased, and proceed to hear the appeal on merits - Court
cannot also postpone the decision as to who is legal
representative of deceased respondent, for being decided
along with the appeal on merits - Though Rule 5 does not
specifically provide that determination of legal representative
G should precede the hearing of appeal on merits, r. 4 rlw r. 11
make it clear that appeal can be heard only after the legal
representatives are brought on record - Proper course for
the High Court, was first to decide as to who were the legal
representatives - After getting the findings, from the
H
734
...
...
JALADI SUGUNA (DECEASED) TH. LRS. v. SATYA SAi
735
CENTRAL TRUST & ORS. [R.V. RAVEENDRAN J.]
Subordinate Court, it ought to have decided that question, and A
permitted the personls who are held to be the legal
representatives to come on record - Only then the appeal could
be heard on merits - Third respondent was added as the legal
representative of the deceased first respondent only after the
final judgment was rendered allowing the appeal -
That B
r'
amounts to the appeal being heard against a dead person -
That is clearly impermissible in law - Entire judgment is a
nullity and inoperative - Matter remitted to High Court.
s. 33, Or. 20 r. 1 and Or. 41 r, 30 - Hearing of appeal -
Death of plaintiff-respondent during pendency of appeal - c
HELD: - When the respondent-plaintiff died and her estate
remained unrepresented, it cannot be said that the appeal was
'heard' - Legal representatives who succeeded to her estate
will have to be brought on record and they should be heard in
their capacity as persons representing the estate of deceased D
plaintiff- If they are not heard, there is no 'hearing' of the appeal
in the eye of law - Consequently, judgment of the trial court
could not be disturbed or set aside by the appellate court.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
E
3375 of 2008.
From the Judgment and Order dated 191912006 of the High
Court of Judicuture, Andhra,Pradesh at Hyderabad in Appeal
Suit No. 294/2000
M.N. Rao, Vedula Venkata Ramana, T.N. Rao, Kavita
F
..,,-
~-;J
Yadav, Manjeet Kirpal and Paramjeet Singh for the Appellant.
•
S.S. Naganand, M.N. Krishnamani, Raghavendra S .
Srivatsa, D. Bharat Kumar, Anand, Azim H. Laskar, M. lndrani
and Abhijit Sengupta, for the Respondents.
G
The Order of the Court was delivered by
...
R.V. RAVEENDRAN J. 1. Leave granted. Heard .
2. The appellants claim to be the legal representatives of
one Jaladi Suguna. The said Suguna had filed a suit in OS
H
736
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2008] 7 S.C.R.
,_
A
No.658/1987 in the Court of Sub-ordinate Judge, Vijayawada,
seeking a declaration that the registered gift deed dated
27.3.1980 executed by her in favour of the first Respondent Trust
('Trust' for short) in respect of the suit property was null and void
and for a consequential injunction restraining the said Trust from
B interfering with her rights. The Trust was the first defendant and
the tenant in occupation of a portion of the suit property was the
"
second defendant in the said suit. The said suit was decreed
by the Trial Court by Judgment and Decree dated 25.8.1999,
r-
declaring that the said gift deed to be void and restraining the
c Trust from interfering with her possession.
3. Feeling aExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.