PARU Vs. DEVAKI VARASSIAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Second Appeal is filed by the legal representatives of the second defendant in O.S. No. 113 of 1985 on the file of the Munsiff's Court of Payyannur. That suit was filed by respondents 1 to 4 for recovery of possession of the plaint schedule property on the strength of title. The third defendant in the suit resisted the suit for recovery by setting up a tenancy in the first defendant. But judgment dt. 28-2-1989 the Trial Court decreed the suit. The second defendant filed A.S. 99 of 1989 before the Subordinate Judge's court challenging the said decree on 1-8-1989.

(2.) While the appeal was pending the sole appellant in the appeal, the second defendant died. He died on 8-1-1992. Neither the, counsel for the appellant nor the legal representatives of the appellant brought that fact to the notice of the Lower Appellate Court. The Lower Appellate Court heard the appeal on 17-1-1992. The Lower Appellate Court delivered the judgment in the appeal on 31-1-1992. Since at the time the appeal was heard and decided the appellant before the Lower Appellate Court had died, the Lower Appellate Court could not have proceeded with the appeal on the merits. Without attempting to get the appeal reopened and to get themselves impleaded as the legal representatives of the deceased appellant, the legal representatives have attempted to come forward with this Second Appeal challenging the decree of the Lower Appellate Court in the appeal filed by their predecessor-in-interest inter alia on the ground that the decree of the Lower Appellate Court is a nullity. When the matter came up for admission I put it to counsel for the appellants as to whether their remedy was not to approach the Lower Appellate Court for a reopening of the decree in A.S.99 of 1989 or is it open to them under law to file a Second Appeal in this court without recourse to that remedy. The learned counsel took time and has elaborately argued that aspect before me.

(3.) In the decision reported in Meenakshy Pillayathiri Amma v. Lakshmi ( 1967 KLT 777 ) this court noticed that the proper procedure to be adopted is to apply to the court which passed the decree and to seek the impleading of the legal representatives of the deceased party and to get a rehearing of the suit or appeal. This decision was noticed by a Division Bench in the decision reported in Abdulla v. Damodaran Namboodiri ( 1972 KLT 53 ) where it was held that the action of a Trial Court, to which the matter had been remanded, in placing the matter before the appellate court which remanded the matter and bringing to its notice the fact that at the time the appellate judgment was rendered one of the parties to the appeal had died was approved by this court thereby indicating that the proper procedure to be adopted was to go to the court which had passed the decree without knowledge of the death of a party before it. In the decision reported in Assyamma v. Aisabi ( 1976 KLT 101 ) it was clearly stated that a decree passed by the first appellate court in ignorance of the fact of death is a nullity in the eye of law. It was further stated "strictly speaking, there was no decree to be appealed against". In the light of these decisions it appears to me to be clear that the remedy of the legal representatives of the deceased appellant before the Lower Appellate Court lay in approaching that court to get the appeal reopened, to get themselves impleaded and to proceed with the appeal in accordance with law.