Leelabai (Smt) vs Rajaram And Anr.
- SCC(1998) 8 SCC 543
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where a minor who is a party to litigation dies pending an appeal, the appeal becomes incompetent and cannot be pursued by the next friend or guardian who brought the suit on the minor's behalf, because the next friend's role terminates upon the minor's death and the estate of the minor devolves by succession to the legal heirs under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, whose consent or impleadment is necessary to continue the litigation. When property devolves by succession under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 following the death of a party to pending litigation, the court's power to proceed with the appeal is withdrawn by that supervening event, and any judgment passed in the appeal without the involvement of the legal heirs is not in accordance with law.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
2. A minor's property was sold through his father as guardian. The father in reverse acting again as guardian filed a suit on behalf of the minor against the vendee for return of the property propounding a different nature as to the transaction. The suit was dismissed. An appeal was taken before the lower appellate court. While the appeal was pending, the minor died. The estate of the minor devolved under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 on his mother. The mother never came forward to get herself impleaded as heir and legal representative of the minor. The father kept pursuing the appeal on behalf of the minor as if nothing had happened, The lower appellate court allowed the appeal. The High Court confirmed the order on subsequent appeal. The short and narrow point now is whether on account of the death of the minor the appeal remained competent before the lower appellate court.
3. The legal position is clear. The plaintiff in the suit was the minor. He had sued taking aid of his father as next friend. On the death of the minor, the need of the next friend vanished. The next friend could not thenceforth act as guardian of the minor. The estate of the minor was decidedly heritable. Under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, the mother of a Hindu male is a Class I heir. The estate of the minor thus fell in the hands of his mother by succession. His mother had remained silent as to the litigation. It thus logically followed that the appeal before the lower appellate court became incompetent and incapable of being pursued. The power of the Court to go on with the appeal got withdrawn by the supervening event of the death of the minor. We therefore take the view that the judgment and decree passed by the lower appellate court as confirmed by the High Court was not in accordance with law. Both deserve to be set aside. The High Court has erroneously observed that the father was a natural heir. Noticeably, the father nowhere figures as Class I heir under the Hindu Succession Act. He as an heir falls in Class II. His turn comes only when no one is available in Class I. On this understanding of the position, we allow this appeal, set aside the judgment and decree of the High Court as also that of the lower court dismissing the plaintiff's suit but with no order as to costs.
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free