JUDGMENT N. N. Sharma, J. 1. This revision is directed against the order dated 22-12-1981 recorded by the learned IX Additional District Judge, Kanpur Sri K. D. Sahi in Misc. case no. 1/74 of 1981 arising out of Original suit no. 49 of 1977 by which objection of revisionist under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure was rejested with costs. 2. It appears that revisionist and opposite party no. 2 are own brothers, sons of late Sri R. C. Gupta, opposite party no. 3 is their mother. Opposite party no. 4 is Sri Ambika Prasad held as joint tenant of Sri R. C. Gupta in the disputed premises by learned trial Judge who decreed the suit for ejectment of defendants from the premises in suit and for recovery of Rs. 3150/- as arrears of rent alongwith costs and pendentelite and future damages at the rate of Rs. 100/- per month on 9-5-1978. IT was suit no. 49 of 1977 (which was on Small Causes Court side), It was alleged that opposite party no. 1 was the landlady and Ambika Prasad, opposite party no. 4 and Sri R. C. Gupta, father of revisionist were the tenants in a portion of ground-floor on house no. 133/M/156. This portion was used as shop let out on monthly rent of Rs. 100/-. Arrears of rent from 1-9-1975 to 31-8-1976 were claimed at the rate of Rs. 1C0/- per month. This amount remained unpaid despite service of notice. The suit was for ejectment, etc. on the ground of default in payment of rent. 3. Defendant No. 1 Ambika Prasad filed written statement pleading inter alia that Ram Chandra Gupta, defendant no. 2 who was a co-tenant died before the service of notice dated 14-9-1976. The suit was filed in 1977 against a dead person and was a nullity. The rate of rent was Rs. 90/- per month. Other pleas were also raised which are not material for the disposal of this revision. 4. It appears that defence of Sri Ambika Prasad was struck off under Order 15, Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure on 4-3-1978. The matter was carried in revision by him which was Civil Revision no, 2704 of 1978. It was dismissed on 5-12-1980. 4. It appears that defence of Sri Ambika Prasad was struck off under Order 15, Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure on 4-3-1978. The matter was carried in revision by him which was Civil Revision no, 2704 of 1978. It was dismissed on 5-12-1980. IT was further observed in the said order that service of notice on all joint tenants was not necessary when Ambika Prasad had been duly served. So learned trial Judge found that such plea could not be raised before him by the objector-revisionist. It appears that an earlier revision no. 1228 of 1978 preferred by Sri Ambika Prasad was dismissed as infructuous on 10-7-1978 without issuing notices to the revisionist and his brother who were arrayed as opposite parties. All the pleas raised by objector failed and this revision was also decided exparte on 23-12-1983 by brother B. D. Agarwal, J. who recalled his order on 14-2-1984 at the prayer of revisionist. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6. On behalf of the revisionist it was argued before me that there is no rent-note executed by the tenants showing that it was a joint tenancy there was no averment made in the plaint to show that it was a case of joint tenancy in her own application dated 12-1-1978 landlady Smt. Mukteshwari Nigam informed the court that defendant no. 2 had died six or seven years prior to the giving of that application. This admission itself shows that Suit no. 45 of 1977 was filed after the death of Sri R. C. Gupta. No notice could be served upon him ; bis heirs were not even brought on record nor were impleaded in that suit. Even the decree which was drawn in suit no. 49 of 1977 and order in Revision no. 2704 of 1978 showed that Sri R. C. Gupta is alive when the aforesaid decree and order were drawn. It was clearly a fraud practised on the Court. Decree against a dead person was a nullity. Sri R. K. Dwivedi, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 1 pointed out that all these points have already been concluded by the earlier decisions in the suit as well as in the aforesaid revisions decided by this Court. Revisionist was included as a party in the revision. Decree against a dead person was a nullity. Sri R. K. Dwivedi, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 1 pointed out that all these points have already been concluded by the earlier decisions in the suit as well as in the aforesaid revisions decided by this Court. Revisionist was included as a party in the revision. The findings recorded in the said revisions have the force of res-judicata against him. Even if it were to be assumed for the sake of arguments that Sri R. C. Gupta was dead when the decree was drawn against him or notice was served on Sri Ambika Prasad the validity of notice under Section 106 of Transfer of Property Act was unassailable. In this connection reliance was placed upon M/s. Radhey Lal Mannia Lal v. Bimal Kumar, 1984 ARC 223 which posited :- " Transfer of Property Act, 1882, Sec. 106-Notice to quit -If addressed to one of the joint tenants- whether valid-Held- Yes- It is not necessary that in case of notice to joint tenants, notice addressed to all of them. " 7. He next relied upon Hukum Singh v. The Prescribed Authority, Muzaffarnagar, 1981 ARC 6. It was an objection by the petitioner in proceedings under Section 23 of U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972. The contention of the Objector was that he was no party to the release order which was being executed by the authority concerned. It was held that- "Release order can be executed not only against tenant against whom it was passed but also against any other person found in actual possession of that accommodation after hearing him. "It was further held at page 7" Objector's pleas in proceedings under Section 23 of U. P. Act XIII of 1972 found to be same which was in earlier suit for injunction filed by him against landlord-decision of such injunction suit would bar objection by such objector as general principles of res-judicata are applicable even to miscellaneous proceedings when one proceedings was a suit and the other was not a suit." 8. So the contention was that all these pleas raised by Sri Ajeet Gupta were raised by Sri Ambika Prasad in vain in the earlier proceedings and Sri Ajeet Gupta being a party in the revision-petitions was held fast by the decisions on general principles of res-judicata which are applicable even to miscellaneous proceedings. Next reliance was placed upon Ram Prasad v. The Officiating District Judge, Azamgarh, 1981 ARC 559 which runs as below - "(A) Landlord and Tenant-Tenancy rights-Determination of its nature-Father and son both taking shop on rent simultaneously-They will be joint tenants and not co-tenants-If by mistake they are written as co-tenants in judgment of lower appellate court-They by itself will not change nature of tenancy rights." 9. I have carefully considered all these authorities. 10. It is obvious that Sri R. 0. Gupta was not alive when the notice was served on Sri Ambika Prasad. Sri Ajeet Gupta or his brother or mother were never brought on the record pending those proceedings. Sri R. C. Gupta was wrongly shown alive when the decree which is being executed was drawn. He was also wrongly shown as alive in Civil Revision no. 2704 of 1978. It appears that the Court was kept in dark about the death of Sri R. C. Gupta pending these proceedings and that is why this mistake crept in. Obviously a decree against dead person is a nullity. As was held in Jadu Nandan Ram v. Parsotam Ginning Co. Ltd., AIR 1930 All. 636 which runs as below :- "Decree against a person who is actually dead on the date when the decree was passed is a nullity and void." Defence of Sri Ambika Prasad on this point had been struck off. So this plea was not decided. 11. In Revision no. 1228 of 1978 prefered by Sri Ambika Prasad, revisionist and his brother were arrayed as opposite parties but no notices were issued to them as the revision was dismissed as infructuous on 10-7-1978. So it is not possible to impute the knowledge of this revision to the revisionists by any stretch of Imagination when he or his brother or mother were never served with any notice. 12. Similarly in Civil Revision no. So it is not possible to impute the knowledge of this revision to the revisionists by any stretch of Imagination when he or his brother or mother were never served with any notice. 12. Similarly in Civil Revision no. 2704 of 1978 preferred by Ambika Prasad a careful perusal of the order-sheet goes to shows that after the order dated 9-3-1979 directing the service on revisionist no service was effected on him although notices were directed to be sent to them through the registered post. Thus it was a suit filed against a dead person and his heirs were never brought on record nor were ever substituted as his legal representatives. When a suit was filed against a dead person his legal repesentatives cannot be impleaded under Order 22, Rule-4, CPC as was held in State Trading Corporation of India Ltd. v. K. V. Vaidyalingam, AIR 1978 Madras 294. I respectfully agree with the said observation made in the said authority. There is no question of any res judicata when Ajeet Gupta and his brother who are admittedly in occupation over the shop in dispute, were neither substituted as heirs of Sri R. C. Gupta nor the decree was against a person who was alive. Such decree is non est and can be validly challenged in execution proceedings alio as was held in Kiran Singh v. Chaman Paswan, AIR 1954 SC 340 1- "It is a fundamental principle that a decree passed by a Court without jurisdiction is a nulllity, and that its invalidity could be set up whenever and whether it is sought to be enforced or relied upon, even at the stage of execution and even in collateral proceedings. A defect of jurisdiction whether it is pecuniary or territorial, or whether it is in respect of the subject matter of the action strikes at the very authority of the Court to paw any decree, and such a defect cannot be cured even by consent of parties." When a decree has been passed against a dead person any order of amendment passed subsequent to the passing of the decree could not validate it vide Happy Valley Tea Co. v. Durshan Lal, AIR 1962 Allahabad 541. Even In cases of a decree against joint tenants it is not possible to evict some of the joint tenants who were no party to that decree as was posited in Mohd. v. Durshan Lal, AIR 1962 Allahabad 541. Even In cases of a decree against joint tenants it is not possible to evict some of the joint tenants who were no party to that decree as was posited in Mohd. Mustafa v. Mansoor, AIR 1977 Allahabad 239 which reads as below 'T. P. Act (1882), Sections 108 (q) and 45-joint tenants-Decree against some-Execution-Eviction-It is not open to proceed against some of the joint tenants on the basis of decree not against them-Judgment obtained is not a judgment in rem (Evidence Act (1872), Section 41). " In this view of the matter I find that this decree which is sought to be executed against the revisionist is simply a nullity and the objection of revisionist was bound to prevail. 13. Thus the impugned order is set aside and it is held that the said decree is not executable against the revisionist. However, taking into account this long drawn fruitless litigation in which the widow was embroiled. I make no order as to costs. This revision is allowed. Stay order, if any, shall stand vacated. Revision allowed.