Case: Dwarka Prasad Singh &amp; Others Vs. Harikant Prasad Singh &amp; Others

2. The facts to the extent they are material may be stated. The suit which was filed by Babu Thakur Prasad Singh and others in 1943 was on the basis of a contract for sale made in 1931 by Saroda Charan Guha (deceased)–defendants First Party in the suit and Babu Ambika Prasad Singh and others defendants second party to whom defendant first party had actually sold the properties in dispute. It was alleged, inter alia, in the plaint that the total sale consideration was Rs. 99,995/-. Out of that sum of Rs. 23,000 has already been paid to defendant first party. It was further stated that defendant second party in spite of full knowledge of the agreement between the plaintiffs and the defendant first party purchased the suit properties for Rs. 1,63,400 by means of a deed of sale dated December 11, 1942. Among the reliefs which were prayed for a decree for specific performance being passed in favour of the plaintiffs against the defendants on payment of a sum of Rs. 55,306.25 paise or such other amount as the Court might determine and if, for any reason, such a decree be not granted a decree for a sum of Rs. 44,688 with interest at 6% from the date of the suit till the date of the realization is passed against defendant first party.3. A statement was filed on behalf of the defendant first party. Therein he admitted receipt of a sum of Rs. 15,000 only by way of payment as earnest money of part consideration. The defence of defendant second party was that being bona fide purchaser for value and having paid full consideration in good faith and without notice of the alleged contract of sale set up by the plaintiffs the suit was liable to be dismissed. The trial Court decided the suit by a judgment dated October, 10,1947. Out of the issues framed on the pleading of the parties the following need beAre the plaintiff guilty of breach of any of the terms embodies in the agreement?6. Are defendants second party bone fide purchasers for consideration without notice?7. Are the plaintiffs entitled to get a refund of the amount alleged by them to have been paid to defendant first party or of any otherIt was found on issue No. 5 that the plaintiffs were not guilty of breach of the terms embodies in the agreement of sale and that it wasfirst party who hadfalse with the plaintiffs and sold the disputed property along with others to defendants second party in December, 1942. The entire liability for the breach of plaintiffs contract lies upon Mr. Guha and not on the plaintiffs. The three issues are answeredOn issue No. 6 the trial Court held that defendant second party had failed to prove that they had paid the consideration money in good faith and without notice of the contract of 1931. On issue No. 7 the Court observed that it was unnecessary to consider in detail the alternative relief prayed for. It proceeded tomay, however, incidentally mention in passing that if I would have refused to decree the main relief of the plaintiffs there would have been no difficulty in my way in passing decree for the alternative claim against defendant first party on account of whose conduct the completion of the sale deed in favour of the plaintiffs has been madea decree for specific performance was granted in theseThree appeals were preferred to the High Court against the judgment and decree of the trial Court. One was by the defendant first party. the other by the plaintiffs and the third by defendants second party. It appears that either the plaintiffs nor defendants first party prosecuted their appeals which were dismissed on the ground of non–prosecution. In the appeal filed by defendants second party one of the appellants Ambica Prasad Singh died in June, 1956. On September 17, 1956 an application was filed by the other appellants for substitution of the legal representatives of the deceased in his place. The High Court, after having an inquiry on the questions in dispute with regard to the date of death of Ambica Prasad Singh and other matters, declined to condone the delay. On September 27, 1957 an order was made recording the fact that the appeal had abated so far as the appellant Ambica Prasad Singh was concerned. On April 8, 1958 the High Court held that the whole appeal failed as having become incompetent because of the said abatement. The appeal was consequently dismissed.6. The appeal which was brought to this Court was filed by defendant second party consisting of defendant 3 to 8 in the original suit. Special leave was granted on February 18, 1959. During the Pendency of that appeal in this Court Saroda Charan Guha original first party defendant who was impleaded as respondent No. 3 in the appeal to this Court died. It was only on February 23, 1972 that an application was made by the counsel for the appellants for substitution of the legal representatives of Saroda Charan Guha deceased (C.M.P. 1501/72). Previous to this an application dated February 13, 1972 had already been moved by the advocate for respondent No. 1 for dismissal of the appeal for non–prosecution as the legal representative of deceased respondent No. 3 had not been brought on the record; (C.M.P. 810/72). On April 24,1972 another application was held by Counsel for the appellants for condonation of delay, if any in filing the application for substitution of the legal representatives of deceased Saroda Charan Guha; (C.M.P. 3091/72). After hearing Counsel at length we made an order on Nov-ember 17, 1972 dismissing the application for substitution.

Reasoning: It appears that the conflict of judicial opinion on the question whether the said rule could be invoked when on the several appellants had died and his legal representatives had not been brought on the record with the result that the appeal had abated against him. But this matter stood concluded by the decision of this Court in Rameshwar Prasad & other v. M/s. Shyam Beharilal Jagannath & others, (1964) 3 SCR 549.   In that case the appeal had been filed in the High Court not by any one or some of the plaintiffs against the whole decree but had been filed by all the plaintiffs jointly. One of the appellants died and his legal representatives were not impleaded. It was laid down by this Court that Order 41, Rule 4 could not be invoked because the appellate Court had no power to proceed with the appeal and to reverse and vary the decree in favour of all the plaintiffs or defendants under that rule because if all the plaintiffs or defendants had appealed from the decree and any one of them had died the appeal had abated so far as he was concerned under Order 22, Rules. 3. The appeal of the surviving appellant could also not be heard because of the rule laid down in the State of Punjab v. Nathy Ram, (1962) 2 SCR 636  ;According to that rule the abatement of an appeal means not only that the decree between the appellant and the deceased respondent becomes final but also, as a necessary corollary, the appellate Court cannot in any way modify that decree directly or indirectly. The decision in Nathu Rams case (supra was referred to in Pandit Shri Chand & others v. M/s. Jagdish Parshad Kishan Chand & others, (1966) 3 SCR 451  ; where the decision was some-what similar to Rameshwarcase (supra). It was also emphasised that in a situation where two inconsistent orders or decrees would result the rule in Nathu Rams case would be applicable. It may be mentioned that in that case an award had been made for payment of compensation in favour of two brother L & H. The state appealed against the award to the High Court During the pendency of the appeal respondent. I died and no application was made for bringing on record his legal representatives within the requisite period of limitation. The question was that since the appeal had abated against L what was its effect in appeal against H. It was observed that the consideration which would weigh with the Court in deciding whether the entire appeal had abated or not would be whether the appeal between the appellants and the respondents other than the deceased respondent could be said to be properly constituted or could be said to have all the necessary parties for the decision of the controversy before the Court. Another main test was whether the success of the appeal would lead to a decision which would be in conflict with the decision between the appellant and the deceased respondent. Thus the Court will have to pass a decree contradictory to the one which had already become final with respect to the same subject- matter between the appellant and the deceased respondent. It is arguable that the present case is distinguishable from the decisions in Rameshwar Prasad and Pt. Siri Chand (supra). Here the appellate Court could, under Order 41, Rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Code reverse the decree for specific performance since the defendants second party filed the appeal and Guha, the vendor, who died had not joined in the appeal. The decree for specific performance proceeded on a ground common to both sets of defendants. It could, therefore, be set aside in terms of the above provision. But there is a joint decree in favour of both sets of defendants for the receipt of Rs. 77,000. If the decree for specific performance is set aside that part of the decree will also have to go. It is not possible to understand how that can be done in the absence of the legal representatives of the decreased, Guha. Moreover, the plaintiffs had claimed against Guha, in the alternative, a decree for substantial amount consisting of the part consideration paid and certain other amounts. If Guha had been alive or if his legal representatives had been impleaded in time the Court could while setting aside the decree for specific performance, grant the alternative prayer which was only made against Guha. This cannot be done now. In theses circumstances we are of the view that Order 41, Rule 4 of theCode of Civil Procedure cannot be of any avail to the appellants. The abatement of the appeal, so far as Guha was concerned, will prove fatal to the entire appeal as either inconsistent and contradictory decree will have to be passed or proper relief cannot be granted in the absence of a necessary party against that party or his legal representatives.