2024 (4) TMI 1084 - HC - Indian Laws

Appellate Court Allows Legal Representatives to Continue Injunction Suit Post-Plaintiff's Death, Affirms Trial Reevaluation.

Vasundhara Mittra and another Versus Aseem Tiwari

The appellate court allowed the substitution of the respondent as the appellant/plaintiff after the original plaintiff's death, affirming that the right ... Abatement of suit claiming injunction - effect on suit when the plaintiff seeking injunction, dies - disheritance by deceased-plaintiff - whether cause of action in an injunction suit will survive to the legal heirs of deceased plaintiff and whether upon death of the plaintiff, the relief of injunction would be rendered nugatory? HELD THAT:- There is a distinction between the death of the plaintiff and the death of the defendant. The injunction is operative against the defendants. Upon death of the defendant, the question of binding his legal representatives by injunction would not arise. But in a case where the plaintiff, who is seeking injunction dies, the same position will not hold good. The right of injunction does not die with the death of plaintiff. In the instant case, the plaintiff i.e. deceased-Usha Tiwari had sought injunction that the petitioners herein should not interfere in her possession over the property in dispute. A suit claiming injunction of this nature does not abate on death of the plaintiff. The cause of action would survive to his/her legal representatives, who come in possession of the said property - One thing is clear that if the respondent and his son succeed in proving before the trial court that petitioner No. 1 has been disinherited from the suit property and that original plaintiff had executed a Will in favour of Yujure Tiwari, her grandson, they have a right to obtain an injunction against the petitioners. Therefore, it cannot be stated that right to suit does not survive in their favour. The learned civil judge has not discussed the matter in detail and has simply noted that as per the plaintiff, cause of action does not survive and that no application has been moved for impleadment of legal representatives though period of 90 days is over. On this ground, the learned civil judge has concluded that the suit stands abated. The order passed by the civil court does not deal with the merits of the issue relating to abatement of the suit. The said observation of the learned civil judge could not have precluded the learned appellate court from considering the issue on its merits and for taking a different view. Thus, it cannot be stated that the learned appellate court has, while passing the impugned order, either committed any illegality or it has acted with material irregularity - The revision petition is without merit and is dismissed as such. Issues involved:The judgment deals with the issue of substitution of legal representatives in a case where the original plaintiff passed away during the pendency of the appeal, and whether the cause of action in an injunction suit survives to the legal heirs of the deceased plaintiff.Issue 1: Substitution of Legal RepresentativesThe petitioners challenged the order allowing the respondent to be substituted as the appellant/plaintiff after the death of the original appellant, Usha Tiwari. The appellate court allowed the substitution based on the principle that if a legal representative can enjoy the relief sought by the deceased plaintiff, the cause of action would survive. The petitioners contended that the cause of action was personal to Usha Tiwari and did not survive after her death. They also argued that Usha Tiwari had executed a Will bequeathing the property to petitioner No. 1, thus no cause of action existed for the respondent. However, the court held that the right to an injunction does not die with the death of the plaintiff, and the legal representatives can continue the suit if they come into possession of the property in dispute.Issue 2: Disinheritance and Will DisputeThe respondent claimed that petitioner No. 1 was disinherited by Usha Tiwari and that the property was bequeathed to the respondent's son. The court noted that the determination of disinheriting petitioner No. 1 and the validity of the Will would be decided during the trial. The court emphasized that if the respondent and his son can prove disinheriting and the Will's validity, they have a right to obtain an injunction against the petitioners. The court highlighted that the merits of the Will dispute and disinheriting claims would be subjects of determination during the trial.Issue 3: Abatement of Suit in Delhi CourtThe petitioners referred to a suit in a civil court in Delhi where the suit was held to have abated after Usha Tiwari's death. The court observed that the Delhi court did not discuss the matter in detail and concluded the suit abated without considering the merits. The court held that this observation could not preclude the appellate court from examining the issue on its merits and forming a different view. The judgment dismissed the revision petition, allowing the respondent's son to move an application for his impleadment as a party before the appellate court or trial court.This judgment clarifies the legal position regarding the survival of cause of action in an injunction suit to the legal heirs of a deceased plaintiff and emphasizes the importance of determining issues such as disinheriting and Will disputes during the trial proceedings.