LUCKNOW: Calling it a case of “daylight judicial murder” and gross judicial misconduct, the Allahabad High Court recently delivered one of its strongest indictments against a subordinate judicial officer, holding that the trial court’s decree was erroneous and “shocked the conscience” of the court.
In a judgment delivered on February 24, 2026, the bench of Justice Sandeep Jain allowed a first appeal filed by Nagar Nigam Ghaziabad and set aside a decree dated May 13, 2025, passed by the then Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ghaziabad, Jasveer Singh Yadav, who had directed the municipal body to mutate a property in favor of one Indra Mohan Sachdev.
The High Court further directed that the file be placed before the Chief Justice for administrative action against the trial judge, observing that the judge’s conduct was “not above board” and appeared to be “tainted with extraneous considerations.”
The dispute arose from a suit filed by Sachdev seeking a mandatory injunction directing Nagar Nigam to enter his name as owner of an industrial plot at Anand Industrial Estate, Ghaziabad. His claim was founded on an ex-parte decree dated May 31, 2022, passed in an earlier suit in which he had been declared owner by adverse possession against one Sushila Mehra.
Before the High Court, it was admitted that Sushila Mehra had died on April 2, 1996—long before the institution of the 2019 suit that culminated in the 2022 decree. The municipal authorities had relied on her death certificate and related court records to contend that the decree was passed against a deceased person and was, therefore, a nullity.
Justice Jain held that a decree passed against a dead person is void and confers no right, title, or interest. He relied primarily on Vikram Bhalchandra Ghongade v. State of Maharashtra & Ors., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2360, where the Supreme Court held that a decree passed in favor of or against persons who had died before adjudication is a nullity and has no force of law. He also referred to Ashok Transport Agency v. Awadhesh Kumar, (1998) 5 SCC 567, which held that a suit instituted against a dead person, and a decree passed therein, is void and incapable of execution.
The High Court found that the trial court had “blindly relied” on the 2022 decree while ignoring the legal consequences of it having been passed against a deceased defendant. It further held that merely paying house tax or being recorded in municipal records does not confer ownership, reiterating that mutation entries are only for fiscal purposes.
The Court also rejected the plaintiff’s adverse possession claim, noting that his own evidence established that his father had entered the property as a tenant. A tenant, the Court observed, cannot deny the landlord’s title and claim ownership by adverse possession without first surrendering possession.
Significantly, the High Court was scathing in its assessment of the trial judge’s approach to evidence. The death certificate of Sushila Mehra had been rejected by the trial court on the ground that it was a photocopy. The High Court termed this reasoning “shocking” and “perverse,” pointing out that certified copies of such documents are routinely relied upon in judicial proceedings.
The Court stated that the trial court appeared to have ignored material evidence “purposely in order to cause illegal gain to the plaintiff.” It described the episode as involving “blatant” flouting of law and denial of justice.
Allowing the appeal, the High Court set aside the decree dated May 13, 2025, and dismissed the original suit with costs throughout. In an unusual step, it directed that the matter be placed before the Chief Justice on the administrative side for appropriate action against the then Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ghaziabad.