Vikram Bhalchandra Ghongade v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors., 2025
The Court emphasized that jurisdiction to decide an appeal presupposes the existence of living parties. Once a party dies, the appeal abates unless legal heirs are substituted, as the right to appeal is personal and does not survive automatically.
Judgement Details
Court
Supreme Court of India
Date of Decision
6 November 2025
Judges
Justice P.S. Narasimha & Justice A.S. Chandurkar
Citation
Acts / Provisions
Section 13(1)(ia), Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
Section 25, Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
Facts of the Case
-
Two defendants had filed a first appeal challenging the Trial Court’s decree which was in favour of the plaintiff.
-
Before the appeal could be taken up for hearing, both defendants died — Defendant No. 4 on 27.10.2006 and Defendant No. 5 on 20.09.2010.
-
Despite their deaths and without substitution of their legal heirs, the First Appellate Court heard and delivered judgment on 20.10.2010, in favour of the deceased appellants.
-
The High Court later affirmed the appellate judgment.
-
The plaintiff, whose decree was overturned, objected to the execution of the appellate court’s judgment, arguing that it was a nullity, as the judgment was rendered in favour of dead persons.
-
However, the objections were rejected, leading the plaintiff to approach the Supreme Court.
Issues
-
Whether a judgment delivered in favour of a deceased party (who died before the hearing) is valid in law?
-
Whether Order XXII Rule 6 CPC, which saves judgments delivered after a party’s death, applies when the death occurs before the hearing of the appeal?
-
What is the effect of non-substitution of legal heirs when appellants die before the appeal is heard?
Held
-
Order XXII Rule 6 CPC applies only when a party dies after the conclusion of hearing but before pronouncement of judgment.
-
If a party dies before the hearing begins, the appeal automatically abates unless the legal representatives are brought on record.
-
A judgment in favour of a deceased appellant is a nullity and cannot be executed.
-
Accordingly, the trial court’s decree stands revived, and it is the operative decree that governs the parties’ rights.
Analysis
-
The Court emphasized that jurisdiction to decide an appeal presupposes the existence of living parties. Once a party dies, the appeal abates unless legal heirs are substituted, as the right to appeal is personal and does not survive automatically.
-
Order XXII Rule 6 CPC was interpreted narrowly — it safeguards judgments only if the hearing is complete and the death occurs afterward, thereby ensuring procedural finality.
-
However, when death precedes hearing, there is no valid lis (dispute) before the court, and any decision rendered in such circumstances is void and without legal force.
-
The Court cited precedents including:
-
Rajendra Prasad & Another v. Khirodhar Mahto & Others (Civil Appeal No. 2275 of 1994),
-
Amba Bai & Others v. Gopal & Others (2001 INSC 263), and
-
Bibi Rahmani Khatoon & Others v. Harkoo Gope & Others (1981 INSC 100).
-
-
The ruling underscores the procedural sanctity of substitution and the finality of abatement under the CPC. It serves as a reminder that judicial determinations in the name of deceased parties are legal nullities, no matter how meritorious the judgment might otherwise appear.