DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY versus DIWAN CHAND ANAND & ORS

DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY versus DIWAN CHAND ANAND & ORS

The High Court's order dismissing the entire appeal as abated for non-substitution of legal representatives of some deceased respondents was set aside because the Appellate Court must examine, under Order 22 CPC, whether the right to sue survives as to the surviving parties and whether the appeal could proceed against surviving respondents; where the estate is represented by surviving plaintiffs/co-owners the appeal need not abate as a whole. The High Court failed to apply Order 22 and to hold the necessary enquiry and thus erred; the matter is remitted for fresh consideration on merits and for inquiry whether rights survive and substitution is necessary.

Parties
Appellant: Delhi Development Authority; Respondent: Diwan Chand Anand & Ors.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
11 July 2022
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Decision on Appeal by the Supreme Court
Outcome
Appeals allowed
Legal Topics
Abatement, Substitution of Legal Representatives, Order 22 CPC, Joint Ownership, Jurisdiction to Challenge Acquisition
Civil Procedure Property Law Land Acquisition Abatement Substitution of Legal Representatives Order 22 CPC Joint Ownership Jurisdiction to Challenge Acquisition

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 6 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Delhi Development Authority

Appellant

Diwan Chand Anand & Ors.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Decision on Appeal by the Supreme Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appeal abated as a whole for failure to bring legal representatives of some deceased respondents on record
  2. 2 Whether in case of multiple respondents the abatement operates against all respondents or only as to deceased respondents
  3. 3 Whether the estate was adequately represented by surviving plaintiffs/co-owners so as to permit the appeal to proceed

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court's order dismissing the entire appeal as abated for non-substitution of legal representatives of some deceased respondents was set aside because the Appellate Court must examine, under Order 22 CPC, whether the right to sue survives as to the surviving parties and whether the appeal could proceed against surviving respondents; where the estate is represented by surviving plaintiffs/co-owners the appeal need not abate as a whole. The High Court failed to apply Order 22 and to hold the necessary enquiry and thus erred; the matter is remitted for fresh consideration on merits and for inquiry whether rights survive and substitution is necessary.

Court Disposition

Appeals allowed

Orders

  • Impugned High Court order dated 09.07.2007 dismissing the First Appeal as abated is set aside
  • High Court directed to consider the First Appeal on merits in accordance with law and to hold an enquiry under Order 22 CPC whether, on the death of some respondents, the right to sue survives as to remaining parties and whether substitution of legal representatives is required