Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court addressed the effect of abatement of an appeal against one respondent on the appeal against a co-respondent in a land acquisition compensation dispute. The Punjab Government acquired certain parcels of land belonging to two brothers, Labhu Ram and Nathu Ram, for military purposes under the Defence of India Act, 1939. The brothers refused the compensation offered by the Collector and applied under Rule 6 of the Punjab Land Acquisition (Defence of India) Rules, 1943 for arbitration of their joint claim. The State referred the matter to an arbitrator under Rule 10, who awarded an amount higher than the Collector's offer and also directed payment for income tax on compensation. The State appealed to the Punjab High Court against the award. During the pendency of the appeal, Labhu Ram died. No application was made to bring his legal representatives on record within the time limited by law, so the appeal abated against Labhu Ram under Order 22 Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The High Court held that the abatement against Labhu Ram also resulted in abatement of the appeal against Nathu Ram and dismissed the appeal and cross-objections. The State obtained a certificate of fitness and appealed to the Supreme Court. The core legal issue was whether the abatement of an appeal against a deceased respondent automatically abates the appeal against the remaining respondents. The Supreme Court clarified that Order 22 Rule 4 CPC does not provide for abatement of appeals against co-respondents. However, in certain circumstances, the appeal cannot proceed against the surviving respondents and must be dismissed. This depends on the nature of the relief sought. The Court referred to Order 1 Rule 9 CPC, which allows the court to deal with the matter in controversy so far as the rights and interests of the parties actually before it. If the court can deal with the matter between the appellant and the surviving respondents, it must proceed; otherwise it must dismiss the appeal. The tests to determine whether the appeal can proceed include: (a) whether success of the appeal would lead to a decision conflicting with the final decree between the appellant and the deceased respondent; (b) whether the appellant could have brought the action for the necessary relief against the surviving respondents alone; and (c) whether the decree against the surviving respondents, if the appeal succeeds, would be ineffective. The Court noted that the abatement of an appeal against a deceased respondent means the decree between the appellant and the deceased respondent has become final, and the appellate court cannot modify that decree directly or indirectly. Applying these principles, the Court held that when the decree in favour of the respondents is joint and indivisible, the appeal against the surviving respondent cannot proceed after abatement against the deceased respondent. In the present case, the arbitrator's award was joint in favour of both brothers, and the State's appeal against Nathu Ram alone was not properly constituted. The Supreme Court, therefore, dismissed the appeals, affirming the High Court's decision that the State's appeal against Nathu Ram could not proceed. The decision reinforced that while abatement is not automatic against co-respondents, the practical effect of a joint and indivisible decree bars the appeal from continuing against the remaining respondent alone.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Abatement of Appeal - Effect on Co-Respondents - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Order 22 Rule 4 and Order 1 Rule 9 - An appeal against a deceased respondent abates when no legal representative is brought on record within time, but Order 22 Rule 4 does not provide for abatement of the appeal against co-respondents. The court must determine whether it can deal with the matter in controversy between the appellant and the surviving respondents; if it can, it must proceed and decide the appeal, otherwise it must dismiss the appeal. Held that there is no automatic abatement against co-respondents. (Paras Not mentioned) B) Civil Procedure - Proper Constitution of Appeal - Joint and Indivisible Decree - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Order 22 Rule 4 - When the decree in favour of respondents is joint and indivisible, the appeal against the surviving respondent cannot be proceeded with after abatement against the deceased respondent. Tests include: (a) whether success of the appeal would conflict with the final decree between appellant and deceased respondent; (b) whether the appellant could have brought the action against surviving respondents alone; (c) whether the decree against surviving respondents would be ineffective. Held that if any of these circumstances exist, the appeal cannot proceed and must be dismissed. (Paras Not mentioned) C) Land Acquisition - Arbitration Award - Joint Claim - Punjab Land Acquisition (Defence of India) Rules, 1943, Rules 6 and 10 - Two brothers jointly claimed higher compensation for acquired land, and the arbitrator passed a joint award in their favour. The State's appeal against both respondents abated against one deceased brother; because the award was joint and indivisible, the appeal against the other brother alone was not properly constituted. Held that the State appeal against the surviving respondent could not proceed and was dismissed. (Paras Not mentioned)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the abatement of an appeal against a deceased respondent under Order 22 Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 results in abatement of the appeal against the remaining respondents, particularly when the decree is joint and indivisible.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, holding that the appeal against Nathu Ram alone was not properly constituted because the appeal against Labhu Ram had abated and the decree was joint and indivisible; the State appeal against Nathu Ram alone could not proceed. The cross-objections were also dismissed.
Law Points
- Abatement of appeal against deceased respondent does not automatically abate appeal against co-respondents
- Court can proceed if it can deal with matter between appellant and surviving respondents
- Appeal cannot proceed if decree is joint and indivisible
- Tests for deciding whether appeal properly constituted: conflict with final decree
- necessary parties
- ineffective decree
- Order 22 Rule 4 CPC
- Order 1 Rule 9 CPC
