Blog

Case title: Diocese of Delhi-CNI vs. Mr. Deepak Martin Caleb

Case No. C.R.P 46/2022

Dated on: 21^st May, 2024

Quorum: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dharmesh Sharma

FACTS OF THE CASE

The deceased plaintiff was appointed as a resident priest by the defendant No. 1 (referred to as petitioner) to perform religious services and duties in the Church. The petitioner allowed the deceased to reside in accommodation on the ground floor of the Church premises. Despite initially intending to retire in March 2001, the deceased’s services were extended at the request of the petitioner on an ad hoc basis until 2005.Claiming a crisis in the Church’s affairs, the deceased was given further extensions by defendant No. 3 to continue performing religious services and retain the accommodation until May 14, 2018.However, in May 2018, the petitioner informed the deceased that his services were no longer required, and a new Presbyter in-charge had been appointed. Subsequently, defendant No. 2 instructed the deceased to vacate the premises, declining his request for alternative accommodation in November 2018.In response, the deceased instituted a suit challenging the authority of the petitioner and defendant No. 2, alleging harassment and asserting his right to continue residing in the accommodation inside the Church. The deceased’s suit claimed relief against the termination of his services and challenged the authority of the defendants to manage the Church’s affairs, particularly regarding his accommodation rights. The petitioner argued that the deceased’s rights were personal and did not survive his death. They contended that the accommodation was provided as an incidental benefit for the performance of religious duties and that the right to retain it ended with the termination of services and the plaintiff’s death. The court noted that the deceased’s claim to the accommodation was not based on tenancy rights but on possessory rights. It emphasized that no hereditary rights were created, and the deceased’s successor could not continue the suit as a legal heir. Referencing legal precedents, including a case involving the appointment of priests in Hindu temples, the court concluded that the deceased’s personal rights terminated with his death and did not devolve onto his legal representatives. Additionally, the court addressed arguments made by the respondent’s counsel regarding a Supreme Court order granting temporary relief but clarified that it did not determine the survival of legal rights in the pending suit. After analyzing the arguments and legal principles, the court concluded that the deceased’s suit abated upon his death, and the previous order allowing its continuation was set aside. The court instructed that a copy of its order be sent to the trial court for information and compliance, effectively ending the proceedings related to the deceased’s suit.

ISSUES

1.  Whether the deceased plaintiff’s legal rights continue beyond his death and can be pursued by his legal representatives.
2. Examining the validity of the defendants’ actions in terminating the deceased’s services and demanding his eviction from the accommodation.
3. Determining whether the deceased’s rights were personal and extinguished upon his death or if they could be inherited or transferred to his legal representatives.

LEGAL PROVISIONS

1. Order 22, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC): This rule deals with the abatement of a suit in case of the death of a plaintiff or defendant and specifies the circumstances under which the suit may or may not abate.
2. Principle of “actio personalis moritur cum persona”: This Latin maxim means “a personal action dies with the person.” It applies to certain actions ex delicto, such as defamation or personal injury, where the right to sue extinguishes upon the death of the person.
3. Legal Precedents: Referring to past judgments like Puran Singh v. State of Punjab and Girja Nandini v. Bijendra Narain, which establishes when the right to sue survives the death of a party and when it does not.

CONTENTIONS OF THE APPELLANT

The appellant, representing the deceased plaintiff, contends that the deceased was initially appointed as a resident priest by the petitioner/defendant No.1. It is acknowledged that the petitioner allowed the deceased to reside in the accommodation on the church premises. Despite the acknowledgment of retirement, the deceased’s services were extended multiple times, indicating an ongoing engagement with the church. The appellant argues that the deceased, in his capacity as a resident priest, faced harassment from the defendants, particularly from petitioner/defendant No.1 and defendant No.2. The deceased challenged the authority of these defendants not only for the non-extension of his tenure but also for alleged harassment. The contention revolves around the termination of his services, which the deceased perceived as unlawful and unjustified. Another key contention is regarding the nature of the legal rights asserted by the deceased. The appellant argues that the rights claimed by the deceased, including the right to continue residing in the accommodation provided by the church, were personal in nature and not heritable. This implies that these rights did not transfer to the appellant upon the deceased’s death.The appellant further contends that the respondent, as the son of the deceased, does not inherit any rights to become a religious priest of the church or challenge the authority of the defendants. The appellant emphasises that the accommodation provided to the deceased was for the sole purpose of facilitating his religious duties and did not confer any hereditary rights upon his heirs. Additionally, the appellant distinguishes between possessory rights and hereditary rights. While acknowledging that the respondent seeks to protect possessory rights in the premises, the appellant asserts that no hereditary rights were created in favour of the respondent. Therefore, the appellant suggests that any claim to the premises should be pursued separately from the deceased’s lawsuit. These contentions collectively form the appellant’s argument against the respondent’s claim and serve as the basis for challenging the lower court’s decision.

CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENT

The respondent contends that the deceased plaintiff challenged the authority of the petitioner/defendant No.1 and defendant No.2. This challenge is not solely based on the termination of his services but also involves allegations of harassment at the instance of defendants No.1 and 2. The respondent argues that such actions justify his right to maintain the suit and seek relief from the court. The respondent asserts that the deceased plaintiff was appointed as a religious priest in the Church in his individual and personal capacity by petitioner/defendant No.1. Moreover, he was allotted and allowed to retain accommodation in the suit premises inside the church premises solely to facilitate him in discharging religious duties. Therefore, the respondent argues that the plaintiff’s legal rights were personal to him and not heritable, which justifies his right to continue the suit.The respondent further contends that even if an extension was granted to the deceased plaintiff, the legal right, if any, available to him was a personal right of action that died with his death and was not transferable or heritable. Therefore, the respondent argues that the relief claimed by the deceased plaintiff challenging the authority of the petitioner/defendant No.1 and defendant No.2 essentially died with him and cannot be pursued further by his successor or legal heir.  The respondent emphasises that no hereditary rights are created in favour of the respondent to continue with the suit filed by the deceased plaintiff as his successor or legal heir. The respondent refers to an analogy regarding the right of a pujari to provide services in Hindu temples to support this argument, suggesting that continuity of service does not confer an independent right upon successors. These contentions form the basis of the respondent’s argument in the case, asserting the legitimacy of maintaining the suit despite the death of the original plaintiff.

COURT’S ANALYSIS AND JUDGEMENT

The court’s analysis and judgement in the case revolve around interpreting the legal rights and obligations concerning the deceased plaintiff’s tenure as a religious priest in the Church and his right to retain accommodation on the church premises. 

The court begins by examining whether the legal right to sue survives the death of the plaintiff, as per legal provisions outlined in Order 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC). It acknowledges the principle that a personal action dies with the death of the person, citing the maxim “actio personalis moritur cum persona.” However, it notes exceptions where the right to sue survives despite the death of the party, particularly in cases where the relief sought would not be rendered nugatory by the party’s death.

 The court proceeds to analyse the nature of the deceased plaintiff’s rights and tenure as a religious priest in the Church. It observes that the plaintiff’s appointment and accommodation were facilitated by the petitioner/defendant No.1 to enable him to discharge religious duties. The court underscores that the plaintiff’s rights were personal and not heritable, emphasising that the accommodation was provided as an incidental benefit to his role as a priest.

Examining the contentions raised in the suit, the court considers the plaintiff’s challenge to the authority of the petitioner/defendant No.1 and defendant No.2, as well as allegations of harassment. It concludes that the relief sought by the plaintiff challenging his termination and authority essentially died with him, as it was a personal right of action.

Addressing the respondent’s contention that he, as the legal heir of the deceased plaintiff, should be allowed to continue the suit, the court rejects this argument. It emphasizes that no hereditary rights are created in favor of the respondent to pursue the suit, as the deceased plaintiff’s rights were personal and not transferable or heritable.

The court draws parallels with legal precedents related to the appointment of priests in Hindu temples to support its analysis. It highlights that continuity of service does not confer an independent right upon successors, further reinforcing its stance on the non-heritability of the plaintiff’s rights.

 Based on its analysis, the court concludes that the impugned order allowing the respondent’s application under Order 22 Rule 3 of the CPC suffers from patent illegality and constitutes an erroneous exercise of jurisdiction. Consequently, the court sets aside the order and declares that the suit filed by the deceased plaintiff abates, meaning it comes to an end and shall not be further proceeded with in the Trial Court.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.” 

Judgement Reviewed by – Shruti Gattani

Click here to view judgement