Summary and Analysis of Suresh Chandra (Deceased) Thr. LRs & Ors. vs. Parasram & Ors Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 15900-15902/2022

1. Heading of the Judgment

Case Title: Suresh Chandra (Deceased) Thr. LRs & Ors. vs. Parasram & Ors.
Civil Appeal Nos.: Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 15900-15902/2022
Court: Supreme Court of India
Bench: Justices Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Manoj Misra
Date: July 18, 2025

2. Related Laws and Sections

The judgment revolves around the following legal provisions:

• Order XXII of CPC (Abatement of Suits/Appeals):
  Rule 1: Right to sue survives on death of a party.
  Rule 3 & 4: Procedure for substitution of legal representatives (LRs) of deceased plaintiffs/defendants.
  Rule 9: Effect of abatement and setting aside abatement.

• Order XLI Rule 4 of CPC: Allows one of several plaintiffs/defendants to appeal against a common decree.

• Limitation Act, 1963:
  Article 120: Limitation for substitution of LRs (90 days).
  Article 121: Limitation for setting aside abatement (60 days).

3. Basic Judgment Details

Background:

• A civil suit (No. 13 of 1983, renumbered 16A of 1997) was filed by Parasram (Respondent) against Suresh Chandra and Ram Babu (Appellants) for declaration of title, possession, and mesne profits over a disputed property.

• The trial court dismissed the suit, but the first appellate court reversed it, decreeing in favor of Parasram.

• The Appellants (LRs of Suresh Chandra and Ram Babu) filed a second appeal before the High Court.

• During the appeal, Ram Babu (Appellant No. 2) died (19.08.2015), but his LRs were not substituted within the limitation period.

• The High Court declared the appeal abated (21.02.2022) and rejected delay condonation applications (04.08.2022).

Core Issues:

1. Issue (a): Whether the High Court erred in rejecting the delay condonation applications for substitution of LRs of Ram Babu?

2. Issue (b): Whether the second appeal abated wholly or partially due to non-substitution of Ram Babu’s LRs?

4. Explanation of the Judgment

Issue (a): Delay Condonation & Substitution of LRs

• The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision, stating:
  Ram Babu died in 2015, but substitution was sought only in 2022.
  No sufficient cause was shown for the 6-year delay.
  The surviving Appellants (LRs of Suresh Chandra) were close relatives of Ram Babu and could not claim ignorance of his death.
  Conclusion: No legal infirmity in rejecting the delay condonation plea.

Issue (b): Abatement of Appeal (Whole vs. Partial)

The Court analyzed whether the appeal abated wholly or only partially (qua Ram Babu).

Key Legal Principles:

1. Joint & Indivisible Decree:
   If a decree is joint and inseparable, abatement against one party leads to abatement of the entire appeal to avoid conflicting decrees.
   Example: If one defendant’s appeal abates, a decree in favor of the other defendant would contradict the finalized decree against the deceased.

2. Order XLI Rule 4 CPC:
   Allows one co-defendant to appeal for all if the decree is based on common grounds.
   But if all defendants jointly file an appeal (as in this case), this rule does not apply.

3. Test for Abatement:
   Appeal abates wholly if:
   Success would lead to inconsistent decrees.
   The rights of parties are interdependent.
   The decree is indivisible (e.g., joint ownership claims).

Application to the Case:

• Both Appellants (Suresh Chandra & Ram Babu) claimed joint ownership through their father, Gokul Prasad.

• The first appellate court decreed that Parasram was the owner and the Appellants were tenants.

• If the appeal proceeded without Ram Babu’s LRs:
  A decree favoring Suresh Chandra’s LRs (declaring ownership) would conflict with the finalized decree against Ram Babu (holding him as a tenant).

• Conclusion: The appeal abated wholly as the decree was joint and indivisible.

Final Decision:

• The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the High Court’s order of abatement.

• No merit in the Appellants’ arguments under Order XLI Rule 4 CPC since the appeal was jointly filed.

• No interference under Article 136 of the Constitution.

Key Takeaways

1. Timely Substitution of LRs is Mandatory: Delay beyond limitation (90 days) without valid cause leads to abatement.

2. Nature of Decree Determines Abatement:
   If rights are joint & inseparable, abatement applies to the entire appeal.
   If rights are severable, partial abatement is possible.

3. Order XLI Rule 4 CPC is Limited: It applies only when one party appeals independently, not when all parties jointly appeal.