Legal Review and Analysis of Vikram Bhalchandra Ghongade vs The State of Maharashtra & Ors 2025 INSC 1283

In-Short

Case: Vikram Bhalchandra Ghongade vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. (2025 INSC 1283)

A decree passed by an appellate court in favour of appellants who were dead before the hearing is a nullity; the original trial court decree revives and is executable.

1. Heading of the Judgment

Case Title: Vikram Bhalchandra Ghongade vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors.
Citation: 2025 INSC 1283
Court: Supreme Court of India
Civil Appeal No.: ...... of 2025 (Arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 9947 of 2024)
Judges: Hon'ble Mr. Justice PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA and Hon'ble Mr. Justice ATUL S. CHANDURKAR
Date of Judgment: November 06, 2025

2. Related Laws and Legal Provisions

The judgment primarily interprets and applies the following legal provisions:

• Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC):
  Order XXII, Rule 3: Deals with the procedure in case of death of one of several plaintiffs or of sole plaintiff.
  Order XXII, Rule 4: Deals with the procedure in case of death of one of several defendants or of sole defendant.
  Order XXII, Rule 6: Specifies the effect of death of a party between the conclusion of the hearing and the pronouncement of the judgment.
  Section 96: Provides for filing a first appeal from a decree passed by a trial court.

• Limitation Act, 1963:
  Article 120: Prescribes a period of 90 days for an application to bring the legal heirs of a deceased party on record.

3. Basic Judgment Details

• Parties:
  Appellant: Vikram Bhalchandra Ghongade (Legal heir of the original plaintiffs).
  Respondents: The State of Maharashtra & Others (including legal heirs of defendant Nos. 4 & 5).

• Subject Matter: Execution of a decree concerning the ownership and possession of agricultural land in Village Takarkheda, District Wardha, Maharashtra.

• Procedural History:
  Trial Court (2006): Decreed the suit in favour of the original plaintiffs, declaring their ownership and granting possession.
  First Appellate Court (2010): Partly allowed the appeal filed by defendant Nos. 4 & 5, modifying the trial court's decree.
  High Court (2012): Initially the second appeal was noted as abated, but was later restored and then dismissed as withdrawn.
  Executing Court (2023): Dismissed the appellant's execution application, holding that the trial court's decree had merged with the first appellate court's decree.
  High Court (2024): Dismissed the writ petition, upholding the executing court's order.
  Supreme Court (2025): Allowed the appeal, setting aside the orders of the courts below.

4. Core Principle and In-depth Analysis of the Judgment

The Central Issue: Validity of an Appellate Decree Passed After the Death of the Appellants

The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether a decree passed by a first appellate court remains legally enforceable when the appellants had died before the appeal was even heard, and their legal heirs were not substituted on record.

Analysis of the Factual Matrix and Legal Conundrum

• The Uncontested Trial Decree: The trial court's decree from 2006 was in favour of the plaintiffs. Defendant No. 3 did not challenge it. Only defendant Nos. 4 and 5 filed the first appeal.

• The Fatal Flaw in the First Appeal: Crucially, both defendant Nos. 4 and 5 died in 2006 and 2010 respectively, before the first appeal was heard on 28.09.2010. No steps were taken to bring their legal heirs on record.

• The Erroneous Reasoning of the Lower Courts: The Executing Court and the High Court rejected the execution of the trial court decree based on the "doctrine of merger" (where a lower court's decree merges with the appellate court's decree). They also held that since the appeal was decided within 90 days of defendant No. 5's death, it could not be deemed to have abated at the time of the decision.

The Supreme Court's Legal Reasoning and Directions

The Supreme Court categorically rejected the reasoning of the lower courts and laid down the following principles:

• Distinction from Order XXII Rule 6 CPC: The Court clarified that the saving provision under Order XXII Rule 6 of the CPC applies only when a party dies after the conclusion of the hearing but before the pronouncement of the judgment. In this case, the appellants died before the hearing, making this rule completely inapplicable.

• Abatement and the "Nullity" Doctrine: The Court affirmed that while abatement is not automatic and requires the expiry of the limitation period (90 days), the legal proceeding itself becomes fundamentally flawed if heard after the death of a necessary party. A judgment or decree passed in favour of or against a dead person is a legal nullity. It has no existence in the eyes of the law. The Court relied on precedents like Rajendra Prasad vs. Khirodhar Mahto and Amba Bai vs. Gopal to cement this principle.

• Revival of the Trial Court Decree: Since the first appellate court's decree was a nullity, it was as if the appeal by defendant Nos. 4 and 5 was never legally decided. Consequently, the challenge to the trial court's decree failed by operation of law. The trial court's decree, having never been validly modified or set aside, remained the only operative and executable decree. The Court cited Bibi Rahmani Khatoon vs. Harkoo Gope to support this conclusion, stating that when an appeal abates, the judgment under appeal becomes final.

• Executability of a Null Decree: Relying on Kiran Singh vs. Chaman Paswan, the Court held that the invalidity of a decree, being a nullity, can be challenged at any stage, including during execution proceedings.

Supreme Court's Final Direction: The Court set aside the orders of the Executing Court and the High Court. It directed the restoration of the execution proceedings (Regular Darkhast No.22 of 2022) to allow the appellant to execute the original decree passed by the trial court in Regular Civil Suit No.181 of 2001.

5. Final Outcome

The Supreme Court allowed the civil appeal. The appellant is entitled to execute the decree dated 14.08.2006 passed by the trial court in Regular Civil Suit No. 181 of 2001. The execution proceedings were restored for a fresh decision in accordance with the law laid down by the Supreme Court.

6. MCQs Based on the Judgment

Question 1: The Supreme Court in Vikram Ghongade vs. State of Maharashtra held the decree of the first appellate court to be a nullity primarily because?
a) The appeal was decided beyond the 90-day limitation period.
b) The appeal was heard and decided after the appellants had died, and their legal heirs were not substituted.
c) The trial court's decree had already been executed.
d) The first appellate court lacked the territorial jurisdiction.

Question 2: According to the Supreme Court's judgment, which provision of the CPC was distinguished as being inapplicable to the facts of the case?
a) Section 96
b) Order XXII Rule 6
c) Order XXII Rule 3
d) Section 100