### Decree Obtained Against a Dead Person is a Nullity and Unenforceable for Property Mutation Purposes

The plaintiff-respondent filed a suit for mandatory injunction seeking to direct Nagar Nigam Ghaziabad to register his name as the owner of Property No. 9, Anand Industrial Estate.

The plaintiff claimed ownership based on a previous ex-parte decree dated 31.05.2022 in O.S. No. 1126 of 2019, which declared him owner by adverse possession against one Smt. Sushila Mehra.

The defendants (Nagar Nigam) contested the suit, asserting they were not parties to the 2019 suit and that Sushila Mehra had actually died in 1996—decades before that suit was filed.

Despite the defendants producing a death certificate and evidence of previous litigation in the Delhi High Court, the Trial Court (Civil Judge, Sr. Div., Ghaziabad) decreed the suit on 13.05.2025, dismissing the death certificate as a mere photocopy and relying blindly on the 2019 decree.

The defendants appealed under Section 96 of the CPC.

Whether a decree passed against a dead person is a nullity and can be resisted at any stage, including execution or subsequent proceedings.

Whether the entry of a name in municipal/revenue records or the payment of house tax confers legal title to a property.

Whether a tenant can legally claim ownership of a property via adverse possession against their landlord.

A decree passed against a dead person is a nullity and its invalidity can be set up whenever it is sought to be enforced.

Mutation entries and revenue records are for fiscal purposes only and do not confer or extinguish title.

A tenant’s possession is permissive and cannot become "hostile" for the purposes of adverse possession against the landlord.

The High Court found that the 2019 decree was a "daylight judicial murder" because the suit was instituted against Sushila Mehra 23 years after her death in 1996, rendering the judgment void ab initio.

The Court noted that the plaintiff was originally a tenant paying rent until 1996, and under law, a tenant cannot deny the landlord's title or claim adverse possession without first surrendering vacant possession.

The Court criticized the Trial Judge for rejecting the death certificate simply because it was a photocopy, noting that such documents are rarely submitted in original by third parties and that the certificate's validity was corroborated by 1992 Delhi High Court records.

The court held that the Trial Court erred in treating house tax receipts as proof of ownership, as municipal records serve only tax realization purposes and do not establish title.

The Court held that the 2019 decree was a nullity and conferred no rights upon the plaintiff.

Strikingly, the Court characterized the Trial Judge’s conduct as "blatant, dishonest and illegal," directing the matter to the Chief Justice for administrative action/disciplinary proceedings against the Judge for judicial misconduct.