Facts Of The Case:
The legal heirs of Arjunrao Thakre filed a civil suit challenging the re-allotment of his agricultural land to defendants 3 to 5. The trial court decreed the suit in 2006, declaring the plaintiffs as owners and the subsequent allotment illegal. Defendants 4 and 5 appealed. During the pendency of this first appeal, both appellants died—defendant 4 in 2006 and defendant 5 in 2010—but their legal heirs were never brought on record. Unaware of the deaths, the first appellate court heard and partly allowed the appeal in 2010, modifying the trial court’s decree. The plaintiffs’ subsequent second appeal was initially dismissed as abated but later restored. They ultimately withdrew it, arguing the first appeal itself had abated. The decree-holder then sought execution of the original 2006 trial court decree. The executing court and the High Court dismissed the execution, holding the trial court’s decree had merged with the (modified) appellate decree. The Supreme Court was approached to determine the executability of the original decree in light of the deaths.
Procedural History:
The procedural history commenced with the trial court decreeing the suit in favor of the plaintiffs in 2006. Defendants 4 and 5 filed a first appeal, during which both died. The first appellate court, unaware, modified the decree in 2010. The plaintiffs filed a second appeal, which was initially dismissed as abated, later restored, and then withdrawn. The decree-holder then filed for execution of the original 2006 decree. The executing court dismissed the execution petition, a decision upheld by the High Court in a writ petition. The matter culminated in a civil appeal before the Supreme Court, which allowed the appeal and set aside the lower courts’ orders, restoring the execution proceedings.
READ ALSO:Supreme Court Ends Confusion, Sets Uniform Rule for Accident Payouts
Court Observation:
The Supreme Court observed that the first appellate court’s decree, passed after the death of both appellants and without substitution of their legal heirs, was a nullity in law. It held that such a judgment in favor of deceased persons does not attain finality and cannot supersede or merge with the valid decree of the trial court. Consequently, the original trial court decree revives and remains executable. The Court rejected the executing court’s view on the technical timing of abatement, emphasizing that adjudication for a dead party is void.
Final Decision & Judgement:
The Supreme Court allowed the civil appeal, setting aside the orders of the executing court and the High Court. It held that the decree passed by the first appellate court was a nullity, as it was rendered in favor of deceased appellants without legal heir substitution. Consequently, the original decree dated 14.08.2006 passed by the trial court in Regular Civil Suit No. 181 of 2001 was revived and held to be executable. The execution proceedings (Regular Darkhast No. 22 of 2022) were restored for disposal in accordance with the law.
Case Details:
Case Title: Vikram Bhalchandra Ghongade vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. Citation: 2025 INSC 1283 Appeal Number: (Arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 9947 of 2024) Date of Judgement: November 06, 2025 Judges/Justice Name: Justice Atul S. Chandurkar and Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha