Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 977 (HP)

Natha Ram (Since deceased through LRs) v. LAC

2018-05-24

DHARAM CHAND CHAUDHARY

body2018
JUDGMENT : Dharam Chand Chaudhary, J. CMP (M) No.657 of 2018 in RFA No. 159 of 2018 & CMP (M) No.658 of 2018 in RFA No. 160 of 2018. This judgment shall dispose of both the applications filed with a prayer to substitute the proposed legal representatives of deceased Natha Ram, petitioner-claimant in reference petition No.46-NL/4 of 2009 and Tiddu Ram, petitioner-claimant in reference petition No.47-NL/4 of 2008. While Natha Ram aforesaid has expired on 4.8.2009, Tiddu Ram has expired on 6.1.2010. They both, as such, expired during the pendency of the reference petition in the trial Court. Both the applications are supported by death certificates of the deceased petitioners-claimants and also the legal heirs certificates. The applicants in these applications, as such, are the legal heirs of deceased petitioners Natha Ram and Tiddu Ram. 2. Learned Additional Advocate General and learned standing counsel representing the respondents submit that in case it is concluded that the award is nullity and these cases remanded to learned trial Court for fresh disposal, the question of substitution of legal representatives of the deceased petitioners-claimants and abatement of the references they preferred may be ordered to be decided after affording the respondents the opportunity of being heard. 3. On hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the record available at this stage, admittedly both Natha Ram and Tiddu Ram had expired during the pendency of the reference petitions, they preferred in the trial Court. The petitions came to be decided vide common award without taking notice of their death and substitution of their legal representatives. They both, no doubt, were the sole claimant in the references they preferred, however, the references decided vide impugned award are not isolated cases and rather the same have been decided in a bunch, lead case whereof was the one filed by deceased-claimant Natha Ram. 4. The evidence, as such, perhaps was to be produced in the lead case filed by deceased petitioner Natha Ram. Since he had expired on 4.8.2009 and as the factum of his death was not brought to the notice of the Court, therefore, it is for this reason despite opportunities granted, no evidence could be produced. 4. The evidence, as such, perhaps was to be produced in the lead case filed by deceased petitioner Natha Ram. Since he had expired on 4.8.2009 and as the factum of his death was not brought to the notice of the Court, therefore, it is for this reason despite opportunities granted, no evidence could be produced. It is significant to note that in terms of the judgment of this Court in Collector Land Acquisition NHPC versus Khewa Ram & Others, Latest HLJ 2007 (HP) 270, the substitution of legal representatives, in such cases is even permissible in the appellate Court also, however, only in a situation, where the evidence stood recorded in the lead case and other claimants-petitioners were also on record along with the deceased to pursue the reference petition further. The law laid down in the judgment supra is not applicable in this case for the reason that the deceased were the sole claimant-petitioner in the references they respectively preferred and the evidence could not be recorded because petitioner-claimant Natha Ram in the lead case had expired during the pendency thereof. 5. On the other hand, if coming to the law applicable, in such a situation, this Court has held in a recent judgment dated 11.4.2018, passed in RSA No.335 of 2016, titled Swaroop Singh (since deceased) through LRs versus Manohar Lal & Others, as follows: “True it is that learned Lower appellate Court has dismissed the appeal and the judgment and decree so passed is in favour of the respondents including the deceased. However, in view of the judgment of this Court in RSA No.304 of 2017, titled Narain Dass versus Devi Ram & Others, decided on 21st March, 2018, the judgment and decree passed either against or in favour of a dead person is nullity and the questions of abatement of the proceedings and substitution of LRs of deceased party have to be considered and decided by the Court where the lis was pending at the time of his/her death. A recent judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in Gurnam Singh (dead) by legal representatives (2017) 13 SCC 414 , has also been taken in consideration in the judgment cited supra.” 6. A recent judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in Gurnam Singh (dead) by legal representatives (2017) 13 SCC 414 , has also been taken in consideration in the judgment cited supra.” 6. Therefore, while relying upon the judgment of the apex Court (supra), it has been held in the judgment ibid that a judgment against or in favour of a dead person is nullity, hence deserves to be quashed and set aside. Such being the legal position, this Court is not left with any option except to quash the main award, which as a matter of fact has been passed against a dead person. Consequently, both the applications are allowed. The impugned award is quashed and set aside and both the cases are remanded to learned reference Court below with a direction to decide the same afresh after deciding the question of abatement and substitution of legal representatives of deceased petitioners-claimants Natha Ram and Tiddu Ram, in accordance with law and on hearing the parties on both sides. The parties, through learned counsel representing them are directed to appear before learned reference Court below on 27th June 2018. Both the applications are accordingly allowed. Consequently, CMP(M) Nos.202 & 203 of 2018, filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act with a prayer to condone the delay as occurred in filing the main appeal will also stand disposed of. The appeal, which is time barred, is also dismissed.