A Decree Against a Dead Person Is a Nullity: Allahabad High Court Sets Aside Mandatory Injunction

“Such a Void Decree Confers No Right, Title or Interest – Its Invalidity Can Be Set Up Whenever It Is Sought to Be Enforced”, In a strongly worded and legally emphatic judgment dated 24 February 2026, the Allahabad High Court held that an ex parte decree obtained against a person who had died decades earlier is a complete nullity and cannot form the basis for any consequential relief, including mutation in municipal records.

Justice Sandeep Jain allowed the appeal under Section 96 CPC, set aside the decree of mandatory injunction passed by the Trial Court, dismissed the plaintiff’s suit with costs, and directed that the matter be placed before the Hon’ble Chief Justice for appropriate administrative action against the concerned Trial Judge.

The Court observed in categorical terms that a decree passed against a dead person “did not confer any right, title or interest” and could be resisted “wherever and whenever it is sought to be enforced.”

Mandatory Injunction Sought on Strength of Ex Parte Decree

The plaintiff had filed a suit seeking a mandatory injunction directing Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad to mutate his name in the municipal property register in respect of Plot No. 9, Anand Industrial Estate, Ghaziabad.

His claim was founded entirely on an earlier ex parte decree dated 31.05.2022 passed in O.S. No. 1126 of 2019, whereby he had been declared owner of the property on the basis of adverse possession against Smt. Sushila Mehra.

He further relied upon payment of house tax and acceptance of tax by the Nagar Nigam to contend that his ownership stood recognised.

The Trial Court accepted this reasoning and decreed the suit for mandatory injunction.

Defendant Had Died in 1996 – Suit Filed in 2019

The Nagar Nigam produced documents including a copy of the death certificate showing that Sushila Mehra had died on 02.04.1996, long before the institution of O.S. No. 1126 of 2019.

Even the respondent’s counsel fairly admitted before the High Court that Sushila Mehra had indeed died in 1996.

The High Court held that since the earlier declaratory suit was instituted and decreed against a person who had died 23 years prior to its institution, the decree was void ab initio.

Relying upon Vikram Bhalchandra Ghongade v. State of Maharashtra (2025 SCC OnLine SC 2360) and Ashok Transport Agency v. Awadhesh Kumar (1998) 5 SCC 567, the Court held:

“A decree passed against a dead person is a nullity, which did not confer any right, title or interest in the disputed property.”

The Court reiterated the settled principle from Kiran Singh v. Chaman Paswan that if a decree is a nullity, its invalidity can be raised “whenever and wherever it is sought to be enforced, even at the stage of execution.”

Trial Court’s Rejection of Death Certificate Termed “Shocking” and “Perverse”

The Trial Court had rejected the death certificate on the ground that it was a photocopy and hence inadmissible.

Justice Jain found this reasoning wholly unsustainable, observing:

“Death and birth certificates are never filed in the original because they always remain with the person concerned or his/her legal heirs.”

The Court further noted that the Nagar Nigam had no conceivable benefit in fabricating a death certificate of a third party.

The High Court termed the reasoning of the Trial Court as “shocking, perverse and tainted with extraneous considerations,” and described the case as one that “shocks the conscience of this Court.”

Mutation and House Tax Do Not Confer Title

The plaintiff had heavily relied upon house tax receipts and acceptance of tax by the Nagar Nigam to assert ownership.

Rejecting this contention, the Court relied upon authoritative precedents including:

“Mutation entries do not by themselves confer title which has to be established independently in a declaratory suit.”

The Court reiterated that revenue or municipal records are maintained for fiscal purposes only and:

“Merely on the basis of payment of house tax of the disputed property, neither anyone acquire its ownership nor can proclaim to be its owner.”

Significantly, the property was recorded in municipal records as “Muraga Khana,” and there was no material establishing that Sushila Mehra herself was recorded owner in municipal records.

Tenant Cannot Claim Adverse Possession Against Landlord

The plaintiff admitted in evidence that his father had entered the property in 1969 as a tenant/licensee and paid rent till 1996.

The High Court held that permissive possession as a tenant cannot ripen into adverse possession unless there is clear and unequivocal hostile assertion and surrender of tenancy.

Relying upon Brij Narayan Shukla v. Sudesh Kumar (2024) 2 SCC 590, the Court observed:

“Once having entered the disputed property as a tenant, the tenant is not entitled to claim its ownership on the basis of adverse possession.”

A tenant is bound to restore possession to the landlord and cannot deny the landlord’s title.

Mandatory Injunction Based on Void Decree – Legally Unsustainable

The High Court found that the entire foundation of the plaintiff’s suit rested upon a void ex parte decree passed against a deceased person.

Since that decree was a nullity, no consequential relief could flow from it.

“It is apparent that the trial court has in total disregard of the legal provisions and evidence on record, has decreed the plaintiff’s suit merely on the basis of earlier decree… which was a nullity.”

The impugned judgment dated 13.05.2025 was therefore set aside and the plaintiff’s suit dismissed with costs throughout.

Strong Observations on Judicial Conduct

In unusually severe terms, the High Court deprecated the conduct of the Trial Judge, stating that the reasoning displayed “either extraneous reasons or lack of competence” and that the order amounted to “blatant flouting of law.”

The Registry was directed to place the matter before the Hon’ble Chief Justice for appropriate administrative action.

The judgment reinforces three fundamental principles of civil jurisprudence: a decree against a dead person is void; mutation entries and tax payments do not confer title; and a tenant cannot claim adverse possession against the landlord without unequivocal hostility.

By restoring legal orthodoxy and setting aside a decree founded on a void judgment, the Allahabad High Court has reaffirmed that procedural nullities cannot be converted into substantive rights.

Date of Decision: 24/02/2026