An appeal filed against a deceased respondent is invalid, rendering the resulting judgment a nullity.

The petitioners claimed ownership of 2 Bighas 3 Lechas of land covered by Dag No. 916 (Old)/402 (New), Village No. 2, Japorigog Gaon, Beltola Mouza, Kamrup (Metro), originally belonging to Hafizan Nessa.

Their predecessor, Md. Nurul Islam, initiated revenue proceedings seeking correction of the records and deletion of the name of Kamala Devi Sarawgi, predecessor of Respondents 6–8.

The Circle Officer passed an order on 7 January 2014, and the Additional Deputy Commissioner subsequently passed an order dated 18 December 2018 striking out Kamala Devi Sarawgi’s name.

Nurul Islam had died on 19 October 2016 during the pendency of the revenue proceedings, a fact recorded in the order dated 18 December 2018.

Nevertheless, Kamala Devi Sarawgi filed an appeal before the Assam Board of Revenue arraying the deceased Nurul Islam as a respondent. The petitioners’ application seeking substitution/impleadment was rejected, and the appeal was decided without hearing them.

By judgment dated 31 December 2020, the Assam Board of Revenue set aside the Additional Deputy Commissioner’s order.

The petitioners’ subsequent review application was rejected on 26 June 2025. They therefore challenged both orders before the Gauhati High Court.

The Court applied the principle that proceedings instituted or continued against a dead person, without bringing the deceased party’s legal representatives on record, are incompetent and any adjudication undertaken in such circumstances is a nullity or non-est.

The Court also applied Order I Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, concerning the impleadment of necessary or proper parties, holding that the petitioners’ application ought to have been treated as one for impleadment rather than rejected merely because formal “substitution” of the deceased respondent was unnecessary.

The Court further referred to Rule 19 of the Assam Board of Revenue Regulations, 1963, which was left available to Respondents 6–8 for seeking appropriate substitution of the deceased appellant, Kamala Devi Sarawgi.

The Court found that Nurul Islam had died on 19 October 2016, well before the appeal was presented before the Assam Board of Revenue, and that his death was apparent from the Additional Deputy Commissioner’s order dated 18 December 2018 and the death certificate.

Since the appeal was filed against a person who was already dead, it was an invalid proceeding from the outset.

The Board was aware of the defect because the petitioners applied for substitution/impleadment, yet it rejected the application and proceeded without hearing Nurul Islam’s legal representatives.

Applying the principle against adjudicating matters against a dead person and the impleadment power under Order I Rule 10(2) CPC, the High Court held that the Board should at least have impleaded the petitioners so that the defect could be cured.

The resulting judgment was therefore non-est and could not stand.

The Additional Deputy Commissioner’s order dated 18 December 2018 was revived.

The appeal was restored to the Board’s file, along with the petitioners’ application dated 2 April 2019 under Order I Rule 10(2) CPC, and the Board was directed to pass appropriate orders for impleading the petitioners.

Since the original appellant, Kamala Devi Sarawgi, had also died, her legal representatives were required to seek substitution, with liberty granted to Respondents 6–8 to move an application under Rule 19 of the Assam Board of Revenue Regulations, 1963.

The parties were directed to appear before the Board on 30 September 2026, and the records were ordered to be returned to it forthwith.