(Uday Umesh Lalit, Hemant Gupta and S. Ravindra Bhat, JJ.)
Kavarampeta Venkataiah and Others ________________ Appellant(s);
v.
Gayatri Educational Society and Others _____________ Respondent(s).
Civil Appeal Nos. 147-149 of 2021 (Arising out of SLP (Civil) Nos. 21630-21632 of 2018), decided on January 21, 2021
The Order of the court was delivered by
Order
1. Leave granted.
2. These appeals challenge the final judgment and order dated 25.10.2017 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the States of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh in Civil Revision Petitions No. 5588 of 2011, 2647 of 2013 and 1372 of 2015.
3. An extent of 41 acres of agricultural land was subject matter of proceedings before the Land Reforms Tribunal, which resulted in order dated 24.02.1976 granting Certificate of Purchase under Section 38-E of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 (‘the Act’, for short). The grant of certificate was confirmed by the Revenue Divisional officer (‘RDO’, for short). However, in further challenge, the matter stood remanded back to the RDO for fresh consideration.
4. The matter was thereafter disposed of by the RDO vide order dated 02.03.2010 confirming the grant of certificate under Section 38-E of the Act, 1950. However, on the date when said order dated 02.03.2010 was passed, the original landlords were no more; and no steps to bring the legal representatives of the deceased landlords on record were undertaken.
5. In Review Application filed on behalf of the legal representatives of the deceased landlords, the matter was again gone into by the RDO, who dismissed the Review Application on 26.10.2012. The appeal arising therefrom was also dismissed by the Joint Collector by order dated 27.04.2013, which discloses that the matter was gone into on merits and the submissions raised on behalf of the legal representatives of the deceased landlords were rejected.
6. Said order dated 27.04.2013 passed by the Joint Collector was under challenge before the High Court in aforesaid Civil Revision Petitions.
7. The Revisions were accepted by the High Court principally on the ground that the order dated 02.03.2010 having been passed against dead persons, was a nullity. The High Court, therefore, concluded that the matter was required to be gone into on merits by the RDO de novo.
8. Challenging the view taken by the High Court, Mr. P.S. Narasimha and Mr. B. Adinarayana Rao, learned Senior Advocates emphasized that the legal representatives of the deceased landlords had chosen to challenge the order dated 02.03.2010 on merits.
9. Reliance was placed on the decision of this Court in N. Jayaram Reddy v. Revenue Divisional Officer and Land Acquisition Officer, Kurnool, (1979) 3 SCC 578 to submit that if an order was passed against a dead person, the representatives of such deceased person could either treat the order or decree to be a nullity or choose to challenge the order on merits. The relevant observations of this Court in said decision were:—
“6. The basic fact remains that a decree against a dead person is treated as a nullity because it cannot be allowed to operate against his legal representative when he was never brought on the record to defend the case. Any other view would not be possible or permissible for it would fasten on him a liability for which he did not have any hearing. So while the law treats such a decree as a nullity qua the legal representative of the deceased defendant or respondent, there is nothing to prevent him from deciding that he will not treat the decree as a nullity, but will abide by it as it stands, or as it may be mollified thereafter on appeal. If a legal representative adopts that alternative or course of action, it cannot possibly be said that his option to be governed by the decree is against the law or any concept of public policy or purpose, or the public morality. It is thus a matter entirely at the discretion of the legal representative of a deceased respondent against whom a decree has been passed after his death to decide whether he will raise the question that the decree has become a nullity, at the appropriate time, namely, during the course of the hearing of any appeal that may be filed by the other party, or to abandon that obvious technical objection and fight the appeal on the merits. He may do so either because of his faith in the strength of his case on the merits, or because of incorrect legal advice, or for the reason that he may not like to rely on a mere technical plea, or because in the case of cross-appeals, he may have the impression that bringing the legal representative of the deceased respondent on record in an appeal by a co-appellant will enure for the benefit of or be sufficient for purposes of the cross-appeal. An abandonment of a technical plea of abatement and the consequential dismissal of the appeal, is therefore a matter at the discretion of the legal representative of the deceased respondent and there is no justification for the argument to the contrary. It is equally futile to argue that an appellate court is denuded of its jurisdiction to hear an appeal in which one of the respondents has died and the right to sue does not survive against the surviving defendant or defendants alone merely because no application has been made to bring his legal representative on the record when no objection to that effect is raised by anyone.”
10. It was, therefore, submitted that since the challenge was raised on merits, the High Court ought to have considered the merits rather than remit the matter on a technical plea.
11. Mr. Venkateswara Rao Anumolu, learned Advocate appearing for the respondents, did not seriously counter the submissions and accepted that the matter be sent back to the High Court to be gone into on merits.
12. While allowing these appeals and setting aside the orders passed by the High Court, we, therefore, direct that the Revision Petitions stand restored to the file of the High Court to be decided on merits afresh.
13. No order as to costs.
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) Nos. 21630-21632 OF 2018
Kavarampeta Venkataiah & Ors _____________________ Petitioner(s)
v.
M/s. Gayatri Educational Society & Ors ______________ Respondent(s)
Date : 21-01-2021 These appeals were called on for hearing today.
(Before Uday Umesh Lalit, Hemant Gupta and S. Ravindra Bhat, JJ.)
Counsel for the Parties:
Mr. P.S. Narasimha, Sr. Adv.
Mr. B. Adinarayana Rao, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Sumanth Nookala, AOR
Mr. N. Praveen Reddy, Adv.
Mr. P. Venkat Reddy, Adv.
Mr. Prashant Tyagi, Adv.
Mr. P. Srinivas Reddy, Adv.
M/s. Venkat Palwai Law Associates, AOR
Mr. Venkateswara Rao Anumolu, AOR
Mr. Deepak Kumar Singh, Adv.
Ms. D. Bharathi Reddy, AOR
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
ORDER
14. Leave granted.
15. The appeals are allowed, in terms of the Signed Order.
16. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
———
