Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — O.22 R.3 — Death of plaintiff — Survival of right to sue
Application for substitution of legal representative — Suit filed by deceased priest seeking permanent injunction against dispossession and declaration regarding autonomy of Church — Held, rights asserted were personal to deceased and flowed from his appointment as priest — Such rights not heritable — On death of sole plaintiff, right to sue does not survive — Suit abates.
[Paras 17–24, 27]
Action personalis moritur cum persona — Scope
Personal actions relating to status, office, service, or personal entitlement extinguish on death — Unless right crystallised into heritable interest, legal representatives cannot continue proceedings — Maxim applies with full force.
[Paras 17, 21–23]
Specific Relief Act, 1963 — S.38 — Perpetual injunction — Personal right
Injunction to protect possession granted only to person having subsisting legal right — Where possession was incidental to service as priest — Right ceases on death — Legal heir cannot claim continuation of personal injunction.
[Paras 21–24]
Possessory rights — Legal representatives — Limits
Mere physical possession by legal heir does not create right to continue suit instituted by deceased — Possessory protection, if any, must be pursued by independent proceedings — Cannot be enforced through substitution in personal suit.
[Paras 23–24]
Religious office — Nature of right
Appointment as priest/presbyter is personal — Neither transferable nor heritable — Incidental benefits like accommodation also personal — Rights extinguish upon death.
[Paras 21–23]
Order XXII Rule 3 CPC — Jurisdictional error
Trial court erred in allowing substitution by examining merits and humanitarian considerations — At substitution stage, only survival of right to sue is relevant — Impugned order set aside.
[Paras 16–17, 27]
ANALYSIS OF LAW AND FACTS
1. Nature of Suit
The deceased plaintiff, Revd. John H. Caleb, filed a civil suit seeking:
Permanent injunction restraining forcible dispossession from Church accommodation; and
Declaration that Green Park Free Church was independent of the Diocese.
The suit was based entirely on his personal appointment and service as a priest, and the accommodation was claimed as an incidental benefit of such service.
[Paras 5, 20–21]
2. Death of Plaintiff and Substitution
Upon the death of the sole plaintiff, his son sought substitution under Order XXII Rule 3 CPC, claiming continued possession and threat of dispossession.
[Paras 7–9]
3. Trial Court’s Error
The Trial Court allowed substitution on the reasoning that:
possession must be protected; and
dispossession without due process is impermissible.
The High Court held this approach to be legally flawed, as it ignored the personal nature of the right asserted.
[Paras 9, 16–17]
4. Governing Test — Survival of Right to Sue
Relying on Puran Singh v. State of Punjab (1996) 2 SCC 205, the Court reiterated:
death does not abate suit only if right to sue survives;
personal rights extinguish on death;
humanitarian or equitable considerations are irrelevant at substitution stage.
[Paras 17–18]
5. Nature of Rights Claimed
The Court held that:
appointment as priest was personal and non-heritable;
right to reside in Church premises was incidental to service;
challenge to authority of Church was tied to personal status;
no independent property or tenancy rights were pleaded.
[Paras 21–23]
6. Effect of Mere Possession
The Court clarified that:
mere continued occupation by son does not create a heritable right;
protection of possession, if any, must be sought by fresh independent proceedings;
such claim cannot revive or continue a personal suit of the deceased.
[Paras 23–24]
7. Distinction from Other Cases
Decisions relating to:
impleadment of legal heirs of defendants, or
disputes under public trust statutes,
were held inapplicable, as the present case concerned personal service rights.
[Paras 24–25]
8. Final Holding
The High Court:
allowed the revision;
set aside the substitution order;
declared that the suit abated on death of plaintiff;
terminated the proceedings.
[Paras 27–29]
Ratio Decidendi
A civil suit founded on personal rights flowing from appointment to a religious office and incidental accommodation does not survive the death of the plaintiff. In absence of heritable or vested rights, legal representatives cannot be substituted under Order XXII Rule 3 CPC, and the suit abates.
No comments:
Post a Comment