In a significant ruling dated July 18, 2025, the Supreme Court of India clarified that when a joint and inseparable decree involves multiple parties, and the legal representatives (LRs) of any deceased party are not substituted in time, the entire appeal will abate. The Court emphasized that failure to bring LRs on record in such cases could lead to conflicting and unenforceable decrees, which is legally impermissible.
“In a case of joint and indivisible decree… the abatement of appeal in relation to one or more appellants or respondents due to non-substitution of legal heirs would prove fatal to the entire appeal,”
— Supreme Court (Justice Manoj Misra)
Case Background
This verdict came in the matter of Suresh Chandra (Deceased) Through LRs & Others v. Parasram & Others. The case dates back to 1983, when a civil suit was filed by the plaintiff, Parasram, claiming ownership and possession over a property. The defendants, Suresh Chandra and Ram Babu, denied the allegations and asserted ownership through inheritance.
Read also:- Kerala High Court Quashes Defamation Case Against Mohiniyattom Artists
Initially, the Trial Court dismissed the suit. However, the First Appellate Court reversed that decision, ruling in favor of the plaintiff. When the defendants appealed again, during the pendency of the Second Appeal, Ram Babu died in 2015, but his legal heirs were not substituted in the case. The High Court in 2022 declared the appeal abated due to this failure.
The Supreme Court bench of Justices P.S. Narasimha and Manoj Misra upheld the High Court’s order. The apex court ruled that:
- Since the decree passed was joint and inseverable, the rights of both defendants were interdependent.
- Continuing the appeal with only Suresh Chandra’s LRs could result in contradictory judgments—a situation where one part of the decree is reversed while the other remains final.
Read also:- Supreme Court Questions BCI on Relaxing AIBE Fee for Poor Law Graduates
“If the decree against the deceased party has attained finality due to abatement, and the appeal continues only against surviving parties, it may lead to inconsistent decrees,”
— Supreme Court
The Court referred extensively to past rulings including:
- Sardar Amarjit Singh Kalra v. Pramod Gupta (2003) 3 SCC 272
- State of Punjab v. Nathu Ram, AIR 1962 SC 89
- Ram Sarup v. Munshi, AIR 1963 SC 553
- Budh Ram v. Bansi, (2010) 11 SCC 476
These judgments uniformly laid out that in cases of joint, indivisible decrees, abatement of one party (due to death and non-substitution) renders the entire appeal void.
Read also:- Fake 'Supreme Court of Karnataka' Account Shown in Court to Highlight Social Media Misuse
Key Takeaways Summarized by Supreme Court
- Entire appeal may abate if rights are interdependent and one party dies without LRs being substituted.
- Courts should not continue appeals where it may result in inconsistent or conflicting decrees.
- A decree becomes contradictory when enforcing one part makes enforcing another impossible.
- If litigants have distinct rights, the decree may be separable; otherwise, it's inseverable.
- The nature of the decree (not just relationship of parties) determines if it is joint or separable.
Read also:- Bombay High Court: UAPA is a Deterrent Law, Not a Preventive Detention Legislation
“Order XLI Rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Code cannot rescue the appeal if substitution of a deceased party’s LRs is not done. Appeal abates in full if decrees could become contradictory.”
— Supreme Court
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal entirely, affirming that:
- The failure to bring Ram Babu’s legal heirs into the proceedings within the statutory period of 90 days led to complete abatement.
- The High Court was right in refusing to condone the 7-year delay, given no sufficient cause was shown.
Cause Title: SURESH CHANDRA (DECEASED) THR. LRS. & ORS. VERSUS PARASRAM & ORS.