The Supreme Court noted that Rule 4 of Ordinance 22, CPC states that if no application for conviction of the legal representatives of a deceased defendant is filed within the time limit by law, the prosecution against a deceased defendant decreases. This rule does not provide that failure to order the legal representative of a defendant terminates the action as a whole. The court noted that if the interests of the co-defendants are separated, as in the case of the co-owners, the action only diminishes in relation to the particular interest of the deceased party. In such a case, the question of the reduction of the appeal in its entirety, which arose in the present case, depends on general principles. The Court also held that, if the case is such that the absence of the legal representatives of the deceased defendant prevents the court from hearing the appeal against the other defendants, the appeal in toto is dismissed. Otherwise, the reduction takes place only with regard to the interest of the deceased defendant. The respondents questioned the viability of the appeal on the basis that a number of defendants had been removed from the circle of parties by the appellants contained in this document and that some of the defendants had died while awaiting the actions and the first and second appeals and that their legal representatives had not been placed on file by the appellants. The complainants did not bother to record the legal representatives of these deceased accused. As a result, the decree was issued in favor of the deceased and deleted defendants, in which it was stated that a Veeraswamy had the right to sell the property, acquired the purpose, and therefore the sales in favor of these defendants (buyers) also acquired the purpose. Consequently, these appeals, which are examined in relation to other defendants before the Court, may be dismissed because, in the event that an injunction is issued which would be contrary to the interests of the defendants remaining in this case/defendants, this would be contrary to the judgments and decrees already confirmed against the deceased/deleted defendants. The Supreme Court has held that if the interests of the co-defendants are distinct, an action under Ordinance XXII, Rule 4 of the CPC diminishes only in relation to the particular interest of the deceased party. However, if the admission of the appeal against the other defendants resulted in two contradictory decrees on the same subject-matter, the appeal would become completely null and void, the Supreme Court established an objective test and held that the test often used in such cases is whether, if the appeal against the other defendants is upheld, there are two contradictory decrees in the same appeal concerning the same subject-matter.
would or would not. The court cannot be asked to issue two contradictory decrees on the same property, and in order to avoid contradictory decrees, the court has no choice but to dismiss the appeal as a whole. If, on the other hand, the success of the appeal did not result in contradictory decrees, there is no valid reason why the tribunal should not hear the appeal and decide on the dispute between the parties. An action for asset sharing was brought against the defendants, which mainly concerned the sale of a certain property by a Veeraswamy. This appeal was dismissed by the Court of First Instance and upheld by the First Court of Appeal. The unsuccessful plaintiffs felt violated by the verdict and the decree and appealed to the High Court. The appeal was heard in the High Court and was made against the appellants of that agreement. As a result, the appellants were compelled to appeal to the Supreme Court. The above relationship was decided by the Supreme Court in the judgment De Sunkara Lakshminarasamma (D) de LRs.
v. Sagi Subba Raju & Others, Civil Appeal No. 43804382 OF 2016 on 28.11.2018.