UMA ANDARJANAM Vs. NEELAKANDAN NAMBOODIRI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is filed questioning the judgment and decree delivered by the IIIrd Additional Sub Judge, Ernakulam in A.S.No.95/87. A.S.No.95/87 was directed against the judgment and decree passed by the Munsiff, Ernakulam in O.S.No.629 of 1982. That suit was filed by respondents 1 to 3 as plaintiffs for a permanent prohibitory injunction. The suit was decreed. The above appeal A.S.95 of 1987 was filed by the first defendant and the lower appellate court modified the decree of the Trial Court. Now the present appeal has been filed by defendants 2 and 3.

(2.) The first defendant, who was the appellant in the lower appellate court, died on 18-2-1990, when the appeal was pending before the lower appellate court. Before her death, the appeal was heard in part on 1-1-1990 and thereafter it was posted to 2 - l - 1990 and then it was adjourned to 6-1-1990. On 6-1-1990, on hearing both the sides, the case was posted for disposal on 17-2-1990. On 17-2-1990, the matter was taken up and reopened on giving notice to both the learned counsel. An then it was posted for hearing on 20-3-1990. On 20-3-1990, both sides were heard and the case was posted for disposal on 24-3-1990. On 24-3-1990, the judgment was delivered by the lower appellate court. As pointed out above, the appellant died on 18-2-1990. In this context, it is pertinent to look into O.22 R.6 CPC which reads as follows: -

(3.) According to the learned counsel for the respondents, the decree impugned is a nullity in view of the fact that it is passed against a dead person where O.22 R.6 CPC. applies and therefore the appeal has to be necessarily dismissed, for as noted above, there is no decree of the lower appellate court to be appealed against. In such situation there arises no necessity to examine the other materials on record. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents plaintiffs was also heard in this aspect.