Case: S. Amarjit Singh Kalra (dead) by Lrs. &amp; Others Vs. Smt. Pramod Gupta (dead) by Lrs. &amp; Others

the relief granted in one cannot be enforced/realized without denying the relief in the other or totally nullifying or setting at naught the relief granted in the other, and in no other class of cases. 40. Even assuming that the decree appealed against or challenged before the higher Forum is joint and several but deal with the rights of more than one recognized in law to belong to each one of them on their own and unrelated to the others, and the proceedings abate in respect of one or more of either of the parties, the Courts are not disabled in any manner to proceed with the proceedings so far as the remaining parties and part of the appeal is concerned. As and when it is found necessary to interfere with the judgment and decree challenged before it, the Court can always declare the legal position in general and restrict the ultimate relief to be granted, by confining it to those before the Court only rather than denying the relief to one and all on account of a procedure lapse or action or inaction of one or the other of the parties before it. The only exception to this course of action should be where the relief granted and the decree ultimately passed would become totally unenforceable and mutually self-destructive and unworkable vis-a-vis the other part, which had become final. As far as possible Courts must always aim to preserve and protect the rights of parties and extend help to enforce them rather than deny relief and thereby render the rights themselves otiose, ‘ubi jus ibi remedium’ (where there is a right, there is a remedy) being a basic principle of jurisprudence. Such a course would be more conducive and better conform to a fair, reasonable and proper administration of justice. 41. In the light of the above discussion, we hold : (1) Wherever the plaintiffs or appellants or petitioners are found to have distinct, separate and independent rights of their own and for purpose of convenience or otherwise, joined together in a single litigation to vindicate their rights, the decree passed by the Court thereon is to be viewed in substance as the combination of several decrees in favour of one or the other parties and not as a joint and inseverable decree. The same would be the position in the case of defendants or respondents having similar rights contesting the claims against them.(2) Whenever different and distinct claims of more than one are sought to be vindicated in one single proceedings, as the one now before us, under the Land Acquisition Act or in similar nature of proceedings and/or claims in assertion of individual rights of parties are clubbed, consolidated and dealt with together by the Courts concerned and a single judgment or decree has been passed, it should be treated as a mere combination of several decrees in favour of or against one or more of the parties and not as joint and inseparable decrees.(3) The mere fact that the claims or rights asserted or sought to be vindicated by more than one are similar or identical in nature or by joining together of more than one of such claimants of a particular nature, by itself would not be sufficient in law to treat them as joint claims, so as to render the judgment or decree passed thereon a joint and inseverable one.(4) The question as to whether in a given case the decree is joint and inseverable or joint and severable or separable has to be decided, for the purposes of abatement or dismissal of the entire appeal as not being properly and duly constituted or rendered incompetent for being further proceeded with, requires to be determined only with reference to the fact as to whether the judgment/decree passed in the proceedings vis-a-vis the remaining parties would suffer the vice of contradictory or inconsistent decrees. For that reason, a decree can be said to be contradictory or inconsistent with another decree only when the two decrees are incapable of enforcement or would be mutually self-destructive and that the enforcement of one would negate or render impossible the enforcement of the other. 42. The Award/decrees, which were the subject-matter of challenge before the High Court, in these cases, viewed in the light of the above conclusions, would not render them to be a joint and inseparable decree but in substance a mere combination of several decrees depending upon the number of claimants before the Court and, therefore, joint and several or separable vis-a-vis the individual or their claims concerned. Consequently, even the abatement of the appeal in the High Court in respect of one or other of the appellants cannot by itself result in the abatement of the appeal in its entirety or render it liable to be dismissed as not duly or properly constituted or not possible to be proceeded with. The conclusions to the contrary arrived at by the High Court and liable to be and are hereby set aside. That apart, since we have also arrived at a conclusion that the rejection of the applications by the High Court was erroneous, the orders passed by the High Court in this regard also are set aside and the legal representatives of the deceased appellants before the High Court are directed to be brought on record in the appeals before the High Court.43. For all the reasons stated above, we are unable to approve the decision or the manner of disposal given by the High Court in these cases, which resulted in grave injustice to the remaining appellants in denying them of their right to have an adjudication of their claims on merits. The High Court ought to have condoned the delay as prayed for, keeping in view the pendency of the main appeals on its file, adopting a liberal and reasonable approach, which would have facilitated an effective adjudication of the rights of parties on either side, avoiding summary rejection of the appeals in entirety.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]29. We have carefully considered the submissions of the learned Counsel on either side. The consideration by the High Court seems to be too superficial on the basis of certain abstract principles without particular reference to the nature and character of the proceedings, the nature of claims and rights of parties, the statutory obligations cast on the Courts dealing with a reference under Section 30/31 originating from an Award under Section 11 of the Act and the source as well as origin of rights of the claimants. The Land Acquisition Collector empowered under the Act to pass the Award was not only obliged to, among other things, determine the total compensation to be allowed for the land but also apportion the said compensation among all the persons interested in the land depending upon their respective interest proportionately, whether they have appeared or not before him. If any dispute arises as to the apportionment of the compensation or any part thereof or as to the persons to whom the same or any part thereof is payable, the Land Acquisition Collector is obliged to refer such dispute to the decision of the Court. If the amount could not be disbursed at his level due to any one or the other reasons set out in Section 31, the amount has to be deposited in the Court to which normally a reference would be submitted. The claim of each one was in respect of his distinct, definite and separate share and their respective rights are notbut independent. Among themselves there is no conflicting or overlapping interest and the grant of relief to one has no adverse impact on the other(s). The mere fact that there was no division by metes and bounds on state of ground is no reason to treat it to be a jointin nature to be asserted or vindicated only by all of them joining together in the same proceedings, in one capacity or the other. As a matter of fact separate claims seem to have been filed by them before the Reference Court in respect of their own respective share. Even if they have engaged a common Counsel or even if they have filed one claim in respect of their specified separate share, it could not have the effect of altering the nature of their claim or the character of their right so as to make it an indivisible joint right. Though the Reference Court has decided all such claims together, having regard to the similarity or identical nature of issues arising for consideration of the claims, in substance and reality the proceedings must be considered in law to be of multifarious claims disposed of in a consolidated manner resulting in as many number of Awards of the Reference Court as there were claimants before it. There was no community of interest between them and that each one of them in vindicating their individual rights was not obliged to implead the other claimants of their shares in one common action/proceeding and the orders/judgment though passed in a consolidated manner, in law, amounts to as many orders or judgments as there were claimants and, by no reason, it can be branded to be a joint and inseverable one. Similarity of the claims cannot be a justification in law to treat them as a single and indivisible claim, for any or all purposes and such a thing cannot be legitimately done without sacrificing the substance to the form.30. The claim on behalf of the respondents that the compensation awarded is of a lumpsum, though shares are divided, is belied by the scheme underlying Sections 11, 18, 30 and 31 of the Act, and cannot be countenanced as of any merit. Against the Award of the Reference Court in this case, it was possible and permissible in law for everyone of the appellants to file an appeal of his own separately in respect of his share without any need or obligation to implead every other of the claimants like him as party respondent or asbecause there is no conflicting interest of claims amongst them, inter se. As such, the alleged and apprehended fear about possible inconsistent or conflicting decrees resulting therefrom if the appeals are proceeded with and disposed of on merits has no basis in law nor well founded on the facts and circumstances of these cases. Even if the appellants succeed on merits, de hors the fate of the deceased appellants the decree passed cannot either said to become ineffective or rendered incapable of successful execution.31. To surmise even then a contradictory decree coming into existence, is neither logic nor reason or acceptable by Courts of Law. Otherwise, it would amount to applying the principle of vicarious liability to penalize someone for no fault of his and denial of ones own right for the mere default or refusal of the other(s) to join or contest likewise before the Court. The fact that at a given point of time all of them joined in one proceedings because one Court in the hierarchy has chosen to club or combine all their individual and separate claims for purpose of consideration on account of the similarity of the nature of their claims or that for the sake of convenience they joined together for asserting their respective, distinct and independent claims or rights is no ground to destroy their individual right to seek remedies in respect of their respective claims. In cases of the nature, there is every possibility of one or the other among them subsequently reconciling themselves to their fate and settle with their opponents or become averse to pursue the legal battle forever so many reasons, as in the case on hand due to disinterestedness, indifference or lethargy and, therefore, the attitude, approach and resolve of one or the other should not become a disabling or disqualifying factor for others to vindicate their own individual rights without getting eclipsed or marred by the action or inaction of the others. Consequently, the fact that about 37 out of the total number of interested persons, like the appellants, were not parties before the High Court or this Court, does not, in any manner, affect or deprive the appellants to have their claims, duly and properly considered and adjudicated in accordance with law, on merits.31. Laws of procedure are meant to regulate effectively, assist and aid the object of doing substantial and real justice and not to foreclose even an adjudication on merits of substantial rights of citizen under personal, property and other laws. Procedure has always been viewed as the handmaid of justice and not meant to hamper the cause of justice or sanctify miscarriage of justice. A careful reading of the provisions contained in Order 22 of CPC as well as the subsequent amendments thereto would lend credit and support to the view that they were devised to ensure their continuation and culmination into an effective adjudication and not to retard the further progress of the proceedings and therebythe others similarly placed as long as their distinct and independent rights to property or any claim remain in tact and not lost forever due to the death of one or the other in the proceedings. The provisions contained in Order 22 are not to be construed as a rigid matter of principle but must ever be viewed as a flexible tool of convenience in the administration of justice. The fact that the Khata was said to be joint is of no relevance, as long as each one of them had their own independent, distinct and separate shares in the property as found separately indicated in Jamabandhi itself of the shares of each of them distinctly. We are also of the view that the High Court should have, on the very perception it had on the question of abatement, allowed the applications for impleadment even de hors the cause for the delay in filing the applications keeping in view the serious manner it would otherwise jeopardize an effective adjudication on merits, the rights of other remaining appellants for no fault of them. Interests of justice would have been better served had the High Court adopted a positive and constructive approach than merely scuttle the whole process to foreclose an adjudication of the claims of others on merits. The rejection by the High Court of the applications to set aside abatement, condonation and bringing on record the legal representatives does not appear, on the peculiar nature of the case, to be just or reasonable exercise of thepower or in conformity with the avowed object of Court to do real, effective and substantial justice. Viewed in the light of the fact that each one of the appellants had an independent and distinct right of his own notupon the one or the other of the appellants, the dismissal of the appeals by the High Court in their entirety does not constitute a sound, reasonable or just and proper exercise of its powers. Even if it has to be viewed that they had a common interest, then the interests of jutice would require the remaining other appellants being allowed to pursue the appeals for the benefit of those others, who are not before the Court also and not stultify the proceedings as a whole andthe others, as well.32. The principles laid down or the ratio of the decision in Ramcase (supra), will not apply to the case on hand. As indicated earlier, the real decision in a given case would ultimately depend very much on the facts of that particular case, the nature of the right sought to be asserted and relief sought. The suit was filed in that case by some four persons asserting a right ofclaiming that they are the nearest collaterals of the vendor and heirs according to rule of succession. The sale was found to be of one entire set of properties to be enjoyed by two sets of vendees in equal shares. Since the position of law was held to be clear that there can be no partialion is the substitution of thein place of the vendee, the Court felt that two conflicting decrees were bound to result, if the appeal has to be allowed in favour of the other remaining appellants, in the teeth of the abatement of the appeal as against the deceased appellants and the decree in respect of him having become final. It is for this reason that the decree in that case was held to be a joint one and, therefore, when a part of it has become final by reason of abatement, the entire appeal was held to have abated, relying upon the decision in Jhanda Singh v. Gurmukh Singh & Ors. (supra). The Constitution Bench, which rendered the decision in Ramcase (supra), was neither concerned with any reconciliation of conflicting views on the point nor declare the correct position of law on this aspect, for the simple reason that the matter was before the Constitution Bench only on the question of constitutional validity of Section 15 of the PunjabAct, 1913, and that the appeal (C.A. No. 214/1961) was dismissed as having abated in view of the earlier unreported decision dated 10.4.2002 in C.A. No. 344/1956 (Jhandacase) rendered by a Bench of three learned Judges, without any further reference either to the other decisions striking a different note or undertaking any exercise, of the nature now before us in the light of a specific reference madeassumption in Jhandacase (supra) as though this Court in Nathucase, as a matter of general principle held that specification of shares does not affect the nature of the decree, cannot be considered to be the correct position emerging on a proper appreciation of the decision in Nathucase (supra). It was, at any rate, observed in this decision also that the nature and extent of abatement in a given case and the decision to be taken thereon will depend upon the facts of each case and, therefore, no exhaustive statement can be made either way and that the decision will ultimately depend upon the fact whether the decree obtained was a joint decree or a separate one. This question, in our considered view, cannot and should not also be decided merely on the format of the decree under challenge or it being one or the manner in which it was dealt with before or by the Court, which passed it.The question, therefore, as to when a proceeding before the Court becomes or rendered impossible or possible to be proceeded with after it had partially abated on account of the death of one or the other party on either side has been always considered to depend upon the fact as to whether the decree obtained is a joint decree or a severable one and that in case of a joint and inseverable decree if the appeal abated against one or the other, the same cannot be proceeded with further for or against the remaining parties as well. If otherwise, the decree is a joint and several or separable one, being in substance and reality a combination of many decrees, there can be no impediment for the proceedings being proceeded with among or against those remaining parties other than the deceased. As observed in Nathucase (supra) itself, the Code does not itself provide for the abatement of the appeal against the other respondents even where, as against one such it has abated but it is only the Courts which have held that in certain circumstances the appeal also would abate against aas a result of abatement against the deceased respondent. The same would be the position of an appealthe appellants, as in the other cases. Order 22 Rule 4 also was considered not to provide for abatement of the appeal(s) against theof the deceased respondent and it was specifically observed therein that to say that the appeals against them also abated in certain circumstances is not a correct statement. It was held that the appeals against such other respondents cannot be proceeded against and, therefore, had to be dismissed, in certain circumstances.37. But, in our view also, as to what those circumstances are to be, cannot be exhaustively enumerated and no hard and fast rule for invariable application can be devised. With the march and progress of law, the new horizons explored and modalities discerned and the fact that the procedural laws must be liberally construed to really serve as handmaid, make it workable and advance the ends of justice, technical objections which tend to be stumbing blocks to defeat and deny substantial and effective justice should be strictly viewed for being discouraged, except where the mandate of law, inevitably necessitates it. Consequently, having regard to the nature of the proceedings under the Act and the purpose of reference proceedings and the appeal therefrom, the Courts should adopt a liberal approach in the matter of condonation of the delay as well as the considerations which should weigh in adjudging nature of the decree, i.e., whether it is joint and inseverable or joint and severable or separable.38. The fact that the Reference Court has chosen to pass a decree jointly in the matters before us is and should be no ground by itself to construe the decree to be joint and inseparable. At times, as in the cases on hand, the Court for its convenience might have combined the claims for joint consideration on account of similar nature of the issues in all such cases and for that reason the parties should not be penalized, for no fault of them. Actus cuirae neminem gravabit (an act of Court shall prejudice no one) is the maxim of law, which comes into play in such situations. Number of people, more for the sake of convenience, may be counselled to join together to ventilate, all their separate but similar nature of claims and this also should not result in the claims of all such others being rejected merely because one or the other of such claims by one or more of the parties abated on account of death and consequent omission to bring on record the legal heirs of the deceased party. At times one or the other parties on either side in a litigation involving several claims or more than one, pertaining to their individual rights may settle among themselves the dispute to the extent of their share or proportion of rights are concerned and may drop out of contest, bringing even the proceedings to a conclusion so far as they are concerned. If all such move is allowed to boomerang adversely on the rights of the remaining parties even to contest and have their claims adjudicated on merits, it would be a travesty of administration of justiceregard to the peculiar facts and circumstances noticed by us that the claimants appellants have each their own distinct, separate and independent rights, the principles enumerated in Hariharcase (supra) and Indian Oxygen Ltd. case (supra) squarely apply with all force. The appeals even de hors the claims of the deceased and others who have not chosen to approach the High Court or this Court, were neither rendered incapable of consideration nor impossible of according any relief or could be held difficult to enforce the decree that may be passed, in favour of the remaining appellants without suffering the vice of inconsistency. Even if it is likely to result in two different sets of judgments of varying content, purport or reason, as long as the enforcement of the decrees passed therein are not rendered impossible due to mutual contradiction in terms ofnature, there is no justification whatsoever to assume them to be inconsistent or contradictory decrees, at all. The mere fact that in a set of similar or identical nature of cases two different nature or type of decrees was necessitated is no reason to treat them to be inconsistent or contradictory decrees, so long as both can be executed and enforced without either of them being destructive of the other. Contradictory or inconsistent decrees, consequently, could be held to have resulted only in a given case when the relief granted in one cannot be enforced/realized without denying the relief in the other or totally nullifying or setting at naught the relief granted in the other, and in no other class of cases.In the light of the above discussion, we holdWherever the plaintiffs or appellants or petitioners are found to have distinct, separate and independent rights of their own and for purpose of convenience or otherwise, joined together in a single litigation to vindicate their rights, the decree passed by the Court thereon is to be viewed in substance as the combination of several decrees in favour of one or the other parties and not as a joint and inseverable decree. The same would be the position in the case of defendants or respondents having similar rights contesting the claims against them.(2) Whenever different and distinct claims of more than one are sought to be vindicated in one single proceedings, as the one now before us, under the Land Acquisition Act or in similar nature of proceedings and/or claims in assertion of individual rights of parties are clubbed, consolidated and dealt with together by the Courts concerned and a single judgment or decree has been passed, it should be treated as a mere combination of several decrees in favour of or against one or more of the parties and not as joint and inseparable decrees.(3) The mere fact that the claims or rights asserted or sought to be vindicated by more than one are similar or identical in nature or by joining together of more than one of such claimants of a particular nature, by itself would not be sufficient in law to treat them as joint claims, so as to render the judgment or decree passed thereon a joint and inseverable one.(4) The question as to whether in a given case the decree is joint and inseverable or joint and severable or separable has to be decided, for the purposes of abatement or dismissal of the entire appeal as not being properly and duly constituted or rendered incompetent for being further proceeded with, requires to be determined only with reference to the fact as to whether the judgment/decree passed in the proceedingsthe remaining parties would suffer the vice of contradictory or inconsistent decrees. For that reason, a decree can be said to be contradictory or inconsistent with another decree only when the two decrees are incapable of enforcement or would be mutuallyand that the enforcement of one would negate or render impossible the enforcement of the other.The Award/decrees, which were theof challenge before the High Court, in these cases, viewed in the light of the above conclusions, would not render them to be a joint and inseparable decree but in substance a mere combination of several decrees depending upon the number of claimants before the Court and, therefore, joint and several or separablethe individual or their claims concerned. Consequently, even the abatement of the appeal in the High Court in respect of one or other of the appellants cannot by itself result in the abatement of the appeal in its entirety or render it liable to be dismissed as not duly or properly constituted or not possible to be proceededconclusions to the contrary arrived at by the High Court and liable to be and are hereby set aside. That apart, since we have also arrived at a conclusion that the rejection of the applications by the High Court was erroneous, the orders passed by the High Court in this regard also are set aside and the legal representatives of the deceased appellants before the High Court are directed to be brought on record in the appeals before the High Court.43. For all the reasons stated above, we are unable to approve the decision or the manner of disposal given by the High Court in these cases, which resulted in grave injustice to the remaining appellants in denying them of their right to have an adjudication of their claims on merits. The High Court ought to have condoned the delay as prayed for, keeping in view the pendency of the main appeals on its file, adopting a liberal and reasonable approach, which would have facilitated an effective adjudication of the rights of parties on either side, avoiding summary rejection of the appeals in entirety.