Indian Succession Act, 1925 — S.306 — Survival of cause of action — Suit for damages — Whether abates on death of plaintiff
Suit for damages for malicious prosecution — Plaintiff died during pendency — Defendants contended cause of action did not survive to legal representatives — Held, under S.306, only causes of action for defamation, assault, or other purely personal injuries not causing death do not survive — Claim for monetary compensation adds to estate and is heritable — Suit does not abate — Legal representatives rightly impleaded.
[Paras 6–7]
Civil Procedure — Impleadment of legal representatives — Damages forming part of estate
Where relief claimed is pecuniary and capable of being enjoyed by legal representatives, impleadment of LRs is proper — Relief not rendered nugatory by death of plaintiff — Order allowing impleadment upheld.
[Paras 6–8]
Indian Succession Act, 1925 — S.306 — Interpretation
Section 306 bars survival only where relief sought is personal in nature and incapable of being enjoyed after death — Provision does not bar continuation of suits for compensation payable in money — Statutory exception for defamation and assault construed strictly.
[Paras 6–7]
Review — Scope — Error apparent
Review sought on ground that impleadment order was contrary to law — No error apparent on face of record — Review cannot be used to re-argue statutory interpretation — Dismissal of review application proper.
[Para 8]
Concession by counsel — Against law — Applicability
Argument that concession made by counsel against law is not binding — Rejected — When order itself is legally sustainable on correct interpretation of statute, question of invalid concession does not arise.
[Paras 2, 8]
ANALYSIS OF LAW AND FACTS
1. Issue Before the Court
Whether a suit for damages for malicious prosecution abates on the death of the plaintiff, and whether legal representatives can be impleaded in view of Section 306 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925.
[Paras 1–2]
2. Nature of the Suit
The original plaintiff instituted a civil suit claiming damages for malicious prosecution, alleging that an FIR was registered against him, that he was acquitted, and that prosecution was malicious. During pendency of the suit, the plaintiff died.
[Para 3]
3. Objection Raised by Petitioners
The defendants contended that:
-
the cause of action was personal to the deceased plaintiff,
-
the suit stood abated on his death, and
-
impleadment of legal representatives was impermissible under Section 306 of the 1925 Act.
[Paras 2, 5]
4. Statutory Framework — Section 306
The Court reproduced Section 306 and emphasised its twofold structure:
-
General rule: all demands and rights of action survive to executors or administrators.
-
Exceptions: causes of action for defamation, assault, or other personal injuries not causing death, and cases where relief would become nugatory.
[Paras 4–6]
5. Interpretation Applied by the Court
The Court held that:
-
the decisive test is whether the relief sought is personal and incapable of enjoyment by legal representatives, or whether it would become nugatory;
-
monetary compensation claimed as damages forms part of the estate of the deceased;
-
such compensation can be enjoyed by legal representatives.
[Paras 6–7]
6. Malicious Prosecution — Nature of Relief
Although malicious prosecution involves injury to reputation, the Court treated the relief claimed as pecuniary rather than purely personal. Since the claim was for damages payable in money, the suit survived.
[Para 7]
7. Impleadment of Legal Representatives
On this reasoning, the Court concluded that:
-
the suit had not abated,
-
impleadment of LRs was legally justified, and
-
the trial court committed no error in allowing substitution.
[Paras 7–8]
8. Review Jurisdiction
The review application sought reconsideration of the impleadment order on identical grounds. The Court held that no error apparent on the face of record existed and review could not be used to reopen statutory interpretation already settled.
[Para 8]
9. Argument on Concession by Counsel
The plea that counsel’s concession was against law was rejected, as the order permitting impleadment was independently sustainable on a correct reading of Section 306.
[Paras 2, 8]
10. Final Holding
The revision petition was dismissed. Orders allowing impleadment of legal representatives and dismissing the review application were affirmed.
[Para 8]
Ratio Decidendi
A suit for damages claiming monetary compensation, including one arising from malicious prosecution, does not abate on the death of the plaintiff, as such relief forms part of the estate and survives to legal representatives under Section 306 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, unless the relief is purely personal or becomes nugatory.
No comments:
Post a Comment