Trial Judge Relied On Ex-Parte Ownership Decree Passed Against A Person Who Died Decades: HC names It As ‘Judicial Misconduct’

The Allahabad High Court has set aside a decree directing Nagar Nigam Ghaziabad to mutate a property in favour of a private individual, holding that the foundational ex-parte ownership decree relied upon by the trial court was a “nullity” as it had been passed against a person who had died decades earlier. The bench of Justice Sandeep Jain described the reasoning as “shocking” and “perverse,” observing that the conduct of the trial judge raised serious concerns about judicial propriety. It went so far as to term the decision a “case of deliberate judicial misconduct” and directed that the matter be placed before the Chief Justice for appropriate administrative action against the concerned judicial officer. has observed that the reason assigned by the trial court for ignoring the death certificate of Sushila Mehra is shocking, perverse and tainted with extraneous considerations. The trial court purposely in order to cause illegal gain to the plaintiff has ignored it, which needs to be deprecated. The conduct of the trial Judge is not above board, who has either due to extraneous reasons or due to lack of competence, has passed the impugned decree, which cannot be legally justified in any manner whatsoever. It is a case of deliberate judicial misconduct, which renders the integrity of the Judge doubtful. This is a case which shocks the conscience of this Court that how could a Judge act in this manner, in order to cause wrongful gain to the plaintiff. The facts of the case speak for themselves, the blatant manner in which law has been flouted and justice has been denied. It is a case of daylight judicial murder. The respondent-plaintiff had sought a decree of mandatory injunction directing the municipal corporation to enter his name as owner of Plot No. 9 (New No. 12/9), Anand Industrial Estate, GT Road, Ghaziabad, in its property records. His claim was founded on an earlier ex-parte judgment dated May 31, 2022 passed in O.S. No. 1126 of 2019, whereby he had been declared owner in possession of the disputed property on the basis of adverse possession. He asserted that his father had taken the property on rent in 1969. Rent was allegedly paid till 1996. Thereafter, his possession became “hostile” and ripened into ownership by adverse possession. He had been paying house tax to the Nagar Nigam, which accepted the payments without objection. When the municipal authority did not mutate the property in his name despite notice under Section 571 of the Nagar Nigam Act, he filed the suit for mandatory injunction. The trial court decreed the suit, holding that since the earlier ownership decree had attained finality, the Nagar Nigam was bound to comply. Before the High Court, the Nagar Nigam contended that the ex-parte decree of 2022 was void because it had been passed against Sushila Mehra, who had died on April 2, 1996—long before the suit was instituted in 2019. The municipal body produced a copy of her death certificate and documents from earlier proceedings before the High Court of Delhi showing that substitution had been effected there after her death in 1996. Significantly, counsel for the respondent fairly conceded before the High Court that Sushila Mehra had indeed died in 1996 and that the decree obtained against her in 2022 was a nullity. The Court held that a decree passed against a dead person is a nullity. Such a decree confers no right, title, or interest. Its invalidity can be raised at any stage, including execution. It does not operate as res judicata. The Court observed that since Sushila Mehra had died in 1996 and the suit was filed in 2019, the 2022 decree was void ab initio. The High Court further noted that the plaintiff’s father had entered the property as a tenant in 1969. Possession initially being permissive, it could not be converted into adverse possession against the landlord. A tenant cannot deny the landlord’s title and claim ownership by adverse possession without first surrendering possession. The Court cited Supreme Court jurisprudence to reiterate that permissive possession cannot mature into adverse possession in such circumstances. Rejecting the plaintiff’s reliance on payment of house tax, the Court reaffirmed settled law that mutation entries do not confer title. Revenue records are maintained for fiscal purposes only. Payment of house tax does not create ownership rights. The Court also noted that the property records described the premises as “Muraga Khana,” and there was no proof that Sushila Mehra was recorded as its owner in the municipal register. The High Court criticized the trial court for ignoring the death certificate on the ground that it was a photocopy. Blindly relying on a void decree. Overlooking binding legal principles. The court directed that the file be placed before the Chief Justice for administrative consideration regarding the conduct of the trial judge. Case Details Case Title: Nagar Nigam Ghaziabad And Another Versus Indra Mohan Sachdev Citation: JURISHOUR-170-HC-2026(Allah) Case No.: FIRST APPEAL No. – 702 of 2025 Date: 24.02.2026 Counsel For Petitioner: Shreya Gupta Counsel For Respondent: Ramesh Kumar Singh, Shivam Yadav, Vinay Kumar Singh Chandel Click Here To Read Order Read More: Cost Of Rs. 1 Lakh Imposed For Misusing Writ Remedy To Avoid Timely Payment Of Property Tax Since Past 3 Years: Allahabad High Court

Trial Judge Relied On Ex-Parte Ownership Decree Passed Against A Person Who Died Decades: HC names It As ‘Judicial Misconduct’

Membership Required

Latest articles

Cenvat Credit Can’t Be Denied on Input Services Having Nexus With Manufacturing Activities: CESTAT

Refund Can’t Be Denied Merely Because Deposit Made During Investigation Was Not Marked ‘Under Protest’: CESTAT

Customs Dept. Can’t Enhance Import Value Solely on NIDB Data: CESTAT

Profit Margin on Sale of Imported Gold Bullion Not Taxable as ‘Consignment Agent’ Service: CESTAT

More like this

Cenvat Credit Can’t Be Denied on Input Services Having Nexus With Manufacturing Activities: CESTAT

Refund Can’t Be Denied Merely Because Deposit Made During Investigation Was Not Marked ‘Under Protest’: CESTAT

Customs Dept. Can’t Enhance Import Value Solely on NIDB Data: CESTAT

About us

Company

Categories