Malicious prosecution / Defamation — Survival of cause of action — Death of plaintiff — Abatement
Suit for damages for malicious prosecution/harassment/defamation — Plaintiff died during pendency of proceedings after remand by First Appellate Court — No subsisting decree in favour of plaintiff on date of death — Cause of action being personal does not survive — Suit and appeal abate.
[Paras 6–8]
Indian Succession Act, 1925 — S.306 — Personal causes of action — Effect
Right to sue for damages for defamation/malicious prosecution is a personal right — Unless merged into a decree, such right does not form part of estate — Legal representatives cannot be substituted if plaintiff dies before crystallisation of decree.
[Paras 6–7]
Civil Procedure — Appeal against remand — Effect of remand order
Where First Appellate Court sets aside decree and remands matter for fresh decision — Earlier decree ceases to exist — On date of death of plaintiff, suit deemed pending before Trial Court — No vested or accrued right in favour of plaintiff’s estate.
[Paras 6–7]
Precedent — Melepurath Sankunni Ezhuthassan v. Thekittil Gopalankutty Nair (1986) 1 SCC 118 — Application
Distinction reiterated between:
(i) death after decree in favour of plaintiff (right survives), and
(ii) death when suit/appeal pending without decree (right abates) — Present case falls in latter category.
[Paras 6–7]
Impleadment of legal representatives — Non-maintainability
Applications for impleadment of LRs dismissed — Once cause of action abates, no right survives to be prosecuted by legal representatives.
[Para 8]
ANALYSIS OF LAW AND FACTS
1. Nature of Proceedings
The appeal arose from an order of the First Appellate Court setting aside the trial court decree and remanding the suit for fresh decision. The plaintiff had originally filed a suit for ₹1,00,000 as damages for malicious prosecution/harassment/defamation.
[Paras 1–2]
2. Core Legal Issue
Whether the right to sue for damages for malicious prosecution/defamation survives to the legal representatives when the plaintiff dies after remand, and before any decree exists in his favour.
[Paras 5–6]
3. Status of Proceedings on Date of Death
-
Trial Court had earlier decreed the suit.
-
First Appellate Court set aside the decree and remanded the suit.
-
No stay of remand order was operating.
Therefore, on the date of death (20-06-2018), the suit stood pending before the Trial Court, and no decree existed in favour of the plaintiff.
[Paras 6–7]
4. Application of Supreme Court Precedent
The Court applied Melepurath Sankunni Ezhuthassan v. Thekittil Gopalankutty Nair, which draws a clear doctrinal distinction:
-
If plaintiff dies after a decree in his favour, the decretal amount forms part of his estate and survives.
-
If plaintiff dies when only the right to sue subsists, such right is personal and does not survive.
The present case squarely fell in the second category.
[Paras 6–7]
5. Nature of Cause of Action
The Court reaffirmed that:
-
Claims for malicious prosecution and defamation are personal torts;
-
They do not survive unless merged into a decree;
-
Mere pendency of proceedings does not convert the claim into heritable property.
[Paras 7–8]
6. Consequence — Abatement
Since:
-
no decree was in existence, and
-
the plaintiff died during pendency of the suit after remand,
the suit abated automatically, and consequently the appeal also abated.
[Paras 7–8]
7. Impleadment Applications
Applications seeking to bring legal representatives on record were dismissed as not maintainable, the cause of action having extinguished.
[Para 8]
8. Final Holding
-
Appeal dismissed as abated.
-
Suit held to have abated.
-
Applications for impleadment of legal representatives dismissed.
[Para 8]
Ratio Decidendi
A claim for damages for defamation or malicious prosecution is a personal cause of action. Where the plaintiff dies after a remand and before any decree in his favour exists, the right to sue does not survive to his legal representatives, and the suit as well as pending appeal abate.
No comments:
Post a Comment