LexTHE STATE OF PUNJAB versus NATHU RAM
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
May I. 636 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1962) THE STATE OF PUNJAB v. NATHU RAM (K. SUBBA RAO and RAGHUBAR DAYAL, JJ.) Abatement of appeal-Joint decree in favour of respondents- Death of one of the respondents in appeal-Failure to bring legal representative on record-Whether the appeal abates as a whote- Test-Code of Civil Procedure, I908 (V of I9D8), 0. 22, r. 4. The Punjab Government acquired certain parcels of land belonging to two brothers L and N who refused to accept the compensation offered to them and applied to the Government of Punjab under r. 6 of the Punjab Land Acquisition (Defence of India) Rules, 1943, to refer to arbitration their joint claim based on the allegation that the land belonged to them jointly. The State Government referred the matter to an arbitrator as requir- ed under r. IO who passed an award in favour of both Land N ordering inter alia payment of an amount higher than what was offered to them by the Government. The Government appealed against the said award to the High Court. During the pendency of the appeal before the High Court respondent L died and as no application for bringing on record his legal representative had been made within the time limit, the High Court dismissed the appeal holding that the appeal had abated against Land that its effect was that the appeai against N also abated. Held, that there can be no question of abatement of appeal against the co-respondents oJ the deceased respondent as Order 22 Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure does not provide for the same but in certain circumstances the appeal cannot proceed against them and such a result depends on the nature of the relief sought in the appeal. If the Court can deal with the matter in controversy so far as regards the rights and interest of the appellant and the res- pondents other than the deceased respondent, it has to proceed with the appeal and decide it; otherwise it will have to refuse to proceed further with the appeal and therefore dismiss it. Ordinarily, the consideration which will weigh with the court in deciding upon the question whether the entire appeal had abated or not will be whether the appeal between the appellants and the respondents other than the deceased respon- dent can be said to be properly constituted or can be said to have all the necessary parties for the decision of the controversy before the court and the tests to determine this have been des- cribed thus: (a) when the success of the appeal may lead to the court's coming to a decision which will 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 2 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 637 final with respect to the same subject matter between the appel- lant and the deceasefl respondent; (b) when the appellant could not have brought the action for the necessary relief against those respondents alone who are still before the court and (c) when the decree against the surviving respondents, if the appeal succeeds, be incffecti ve that is to say it could not be successfully executed. The abatement of an appeal against the deceased respon- dent means not only that the decree between the appellant and the deceased respondent has become final but also as a necessary corollary that the appellate court cannot in any way modify that decree directly or indirectly. When the decree in favour of the respondents is joint and indivisible, the appeal against the respondents other than the deceased respondent cannot be proceeded with if the appeal against the deceased respondent has abated. In the present case the appeal against N alone was not pro- perly constituted when the appeal against L had abated and the State appeal against N alone could not proceed. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeals Nos. 635 to 641 of 1957. Appeals from the judgment and decree dated September 8, 1954, of the Punjab High Court in Regular .E'irat Appeals Nos. 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47 and 48 of 1949. R. Gopalakrishnan, T. M. Sen and R. H. Dhebar, for the appellants. Darya Dutt Chawla, for the respondents. 1961. May 1. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by The State of Jlunjab v. Nathu Rain RAGHUBAR DAYAL, J.-Civil Appeal No. 635 of 1957 Raghubar is an appeal, by certificate, and raises the question Dayal J. regarding the effect of the abatem
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.