SUPREME COURT RULES THAT A ‘NULL AND VOID’ DECREE CAN BE CONTESTED AT ANY STAGE, INCLUDING EXECUTION PROCEEDINGS:

The Supreme Court has reiterated that a decree which is a “nullity” in law can be challenged at any stage, including during execution proceedings. The bench comprising Justice P.S. Narasimha and Justice A.S. Chandurkar made this observation while setting aside a Bombay High Court order that had refused to execute a trial court decree on the ground that it had merged with an appellate court decree. The Court emphasized that a void decree cannot be given effect to, and its invalidity can be raised whenever or wherever it is sought to be enforced.

The bench referred to the settled principle laid down in Kiran Singh and Others v. Chaman Paswan and Others (1954 INSC 45), which established that a decree that is null and void can be challenged at any stage of legal proceedings, even during execution. Applying this principle, the Court observed that the First Appellate Court’s decree in the present case was a nullity as it had been passed in favour of appellants who had already died before the appeal was heard and decided.

The case involved a dispute over land allotted to an ex-serviceman, Arjunrao Thakre. After Thakre’s death, the land was re-allotted to other individuals, prompting his legal heirs to institute a civil suit challenging the re-allotment. In 2006, the trial court decreed the suit in favour of Thakre’s heirs, holding that the re-allotment was illegal. Defendants 4 and 5, who were among the beneficiaries of the re-allotment, filed an appeal before the First Appellate Court. However, both appellants died during the pendency of the appeal, and their legal representatives were never substituted in their place.

Despite this procedural lapse, the First Appellate Court proceeded to decide the appeal in 2010 and modified the trial court’s decree. When one of Thakre’s heirs, Vikram Ghongade, later sought to execute the 2006 trial court decree, the executing court rejected the application, holding that the decree had merged with the appellate decree. The Bombay High Court affirmed this view, observing that the appellate decree was the operative one and, therefore, the trial court’s decree could not be executed independently.

On appeal, the Supreme Court disagreed with this reasoning. In the judgment authored by Justice Chandurkar, the Court observed that since both appellants before the First Appellate Court had died prior to the hearing of the appeal, the proceedings had abated, and the decree passed thereafter was void in law. The Court explained that such a decree was not merely voidable but a complete nullity, having been rendered in favour of non-existent parties. Consequently, the trial court’s decree could not be said to have merged with the appellate decree, as the latter had no legal existence.

The Court held that the First Appellate Court’s decree being a nullity revived the trial court’s original decree, which thus became executable. It further clarified that the question of nullity can be raised at any stage of the legal process, including at the stage of execution. The bench emphasized that procedural defects of this nature go to the root of jurisdiction and cannot be cured by subsequent actions or omissions. Accordingly, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order and restored the trial court’s decree for execution. The ruling reinforces the principle that decrees passed in violation of essential procedural safeguards, or in favour of deceased parties, are void ab initio and can be challenged at any point in the judicial process.