SC Declares Appellate Decree a Nullity; Allows Execution of Trial Court’s Order in Land Allotment Case

The case arose from a land allotment dispute involving agricultural land at Takarkheda, Wardha, originally granted to ex-serviceman Arjunrao Thakre. After his death, the land was re-allotted to others, prompting his legal heirs to file a civil suit. In 2006, the trial court decreed in favor of Thakre’s heirs, declaring the re-allotment to defendants 3 to 5 illegal and granting them possession rights. However, defendants 4 and 5 appealed, and the first appellate court partly modified the decree in October 2010, without being informed that both appellants had already died before the hearing.

Trial Court and HC’s Judgment: When the heirs of Thakre later sought to execute the trial court decree, the executing court rejected their plea, holding that the trial decree had merged with the appellate decree. The High Court upheld this view in 2024.

Issue Before the Apex Court: Whether a decree passed by a court in favour of deceased appellants, whose legal heirs were never brought on record, is a nullity and if the original trial court decree can be lawfully executed in such a case.

SC’s Judgment: The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and restored the execution proceedings, ruling that the first appellate decree passed in favour of dead appellants was a nullity in law. The Court held that since both appellants in the first appeal had expired before the hearing on 28 September 2010, the proceedings were not protected under Order XXII Rule 6 CPC, which applies only when death occurs after hearing but before pronouncement. Thus, the appellate judgment dated 20 October 2010 was void ab initio.

Relying on Rajendra Prasad v. Khirodhar Mahto (1994) and Kiran Singh v. Chaman Paswan, the Court reaffirmed that a decree that is a nullity can be challenged at any stage, including during execution. Thus, the Supreme Court set aside the orders of the executing court and the Bombay High Court, directing restoration of the execution proceedings so the decree of 14 August 2006 could be lawfully enforced

To Read full judgment, Download PDF Given Below