N.P. THIRUGNANAM Vs. R. JAGAN MOHAN RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONERS are the legal representatives of N.P. Thirugnanam, the plaintiff who had entered into an agreement of sale with the first respondent for himself and on behalf of his mother, brothers and sisters as general Power of Attorney holder to alienate the house property in Madras city for a total consideration of Rs. 2,30,000/ - and paid a sum of Rs. 10,000/ - as advance. Till date of execution of the sale -deed, he came into possession as a tenant agreeing to pay a sum of Rs. 1,650/ - per month as rent. He laid the suit for specific performance with the averments that the respondents have evaded to execute the sale deed. The respondents pleaded that they were ready and willing to perform their part of the contract and the plaintiffs did not even pay Rs. 20,000/ - further advance as contracted by December, 1979 to discharge the mortgage debt due to the Madras Corporation. The amount of Rs. 20,000/ - was adjusted towards the rent payable with consent. On adduction of evidence and consideration thereof, the single Judge of the High Court found that the plaintiff was not ready and willing to perform his part of the contract giving diverse reasons. On appeal in OSA No. 195/83 dated January 3, 1985, the Division Bench in a well considered judgment dismissed the same.

(2.) THE first ground raised in the SLP is that the decree of dismissal against the dead plaintiff -appellant is a nullity. We find no force in the contention. It is true that the plaintiff died on December 26, 1994 by which date the arguments in the appeal were already heard and the judgment was reserved. The counsel for the plaintiff filed a Memorandum bringing to the notice of the Court the demise under Order 22 Rule 11 -A of CPC and prayed for time to bring on record the petitioners as legal representatives to represent the estate of the deceased. The Court declined to accede to the request.

(3.) IN the face of the explicit language in Rule 6 of Order 22, there can be no abatement by reason of the death of any party between the conclusion of the hearing and the pronouncement of the judgment. It may bb pronounced, notwithstanding the death, and shall have the same force and effect as if Judgment had been pronounced before the death took place. Therefore, the contention that the judgment and decree of the appellate Court is a nullity, is devoid of substance.