1979 (3) TMI 210 - SC - Indian Laws

Supreme Court upholds High Court judgment, clarifies decree against deceased not nullity.

N. Jayaram Reddy And Anr. Versus Revenue Divisional Officer And Land Acquisition Officer, Kurnool

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the High Court's judgment. The Court held that the Government appeal did not abate entirely due to the ... - Issues Involved:1. Abatement of the Government Appeal2. Nullity of the High Court's Decree3. Finding of Fact on CompensationIssue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Abatement of the Government Appeal:The primary contention was that the Government appeal abated due to the failure to bring the legal representatives of deceased respondent Y. Prabhakar Reddy on record within the prescribed period. The appellants argued that the appeal abated as a whole, relying on the precedent set in *State of Punjab v. Nathu Ram*. The Court noted that under Order XXII Rule 4(1) and (3) of the CPC, the appeal abated against the deceased respondent due to non-substitution of his legal representatives. However, it was emphasized that the abatement did not automatically dismiss the entire appeal. The Court highlighted that the legal representatives of the deceased respondent were aware of the proceedings and had the opportunity to raise the issue of abatement but chose not to, thereby wilfully abandoning the plea. The Court concluded that the failure to raise this contention at the appropriate time, especially when the legal representatives were already participating in related appeals, indicated a deliberate abandonment of the plea, and thus, the Government appeal did not abate as a whole.2. Nullity of the High Court's Decree:The appellants argued that the High Court's decree was a nullity because it was passed against a deceased person. The Court clarified that a decree against a dead person is not necessarily a nullity for all purposes. It is treated as a nullity only to the extent that it cannot be executed against the legal representatives who were not given an opportunity to be heard. The Court emphasized that the legal representatives had the discretion to either treat the decree as a nullity or abide by it. In this case, the legal representatives participated in the proceedings without raising the issue of abatement, indicating their decision to be bound by the decree. Therefore, the High Court's decree was not a nullity merely because it included a deceased respondent.3. Finding of Fact on Compensation:The appellants contested the High Court's finding that reduced the compensation from Rs. 12/- to Rs. 4/- per square yard. The Court reviewed the High Court's consideration of various factors, including the location of the land, its purchase price, and the lack of improvements made by the claimants. The High Court had examined the sale deeds and concluded that the land's market value was Rs. 4/- per square yard, doubling the rate at which the claimants had purchased the land eight months prior to the acquisition. The Supreme Court found no error in the High Court's assessment and held that the finding was not vitiated for any reason, thus requiring no interference.Separate Judgment by D.A. Desai, J.:Justice Desai concurred with the dismissal of the appeal but provided a separate opinion. He argued that the Government appeal had not abated at all. He emphasized the interdependence of cross-appeals and the principle that the substitution of legal representatives in one appeal should enure for the benefit of the other. He concluded that the legal representatives of the deceased respondent were effectively before the Court in the claimants' appeal and had the opportunity to contest the Government appeal. Therefore, the Government appeal had not abated, and the High Court's judgment on compensation was upheld.Conclusion:The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the High Court's judgment on the grounds that the Government appeal had not abated, the decree was not a nullity, and the compensation determined by the High Court was appropriate.