The Supreme Court held that the maxim actio personalis moritur cum persona is not absolute in India and clarified that survivability of proceedings after a litigant’s death must be tested under Section 306 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, along with the procedural framework under Order XXII CPC.
The Supreme Court has explained the legal principles governing the survival of the “right to sue” after the death of a party to legal proceedings.
A Bench of Justice J.K. Maheshwari and Justice A.S. Chandurkar held that the common law maxim actio personalis moritur cum persona does not apply in absolute terms in India.
The maxim means that a personal action dies with the person. However, the Court noted that Indian statutes have modified this rule.
These statutes include the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855, the Legal Representatives’ Suits Act, 1855, and the Indian Succession Act, 1925.
Section 306 Indian Succession Act Governs Survival Of Claims
The Supreme Court held that legal representatives of a deceased person may file fresh proceedings. They may also face proceedings, subject to the limits recognised under succession law.
The Court clarified that courts must decide survival of proceedings with reference to Section 306 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925.
Therefore, courts cannot decide the issue only on the basis of procedural provisions.
The Court also explained the relationship between Section 306 and Order XXII of the Code of Civil Procedure.
Order XXII deals with substitution of parties after death. However, it is only a procedural provision.
Therefore, it must be read along with Section 306 of the Indian Succession Act. It cannot expand the scope of claims that survive in law.
Right To Sue Must Be Tested On Date Of Death
The Supreme Court stated that courts must examine survival of the “right to sue” as on the date of death of the concerned party.
The Court explained that personal injury claims usually abate on death. These may include claims relating to pain, suffering, or defamation.
However, claims involving pecuniary loss or the estate of the deceased survive. Such claims may continue against legal representatives.
Medical Negligence Claim Can Continue Against Doctor’s Legal Heirs
The Bench summarised these principles while deciding a medical negligence claim under the Consumer Protection Act.
The Court held that legal heirs of a deceased doctor can face proceedings in a medical negligence claim.
Thus, the Court recognised that claims connected with the estate of a deceased person may continue. This applies even when the original party is no longer alive.
Principles Laid Down By Supreme Court
The Supreme Court summarised the governing principles as follows:
First, Indian statutes have modified the common law rule actio personalis moritur cum persona. These statutes include the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855, the Legal Representatives’ Suits Act, 1855, and the Indian Succession Act, 1925.
Second, the legal representative of a deceased person can institute a fresh suit. A legal representative can also be sued afresh under the Legal Representatives’ Suits Act, 1855, or Section 306 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925.
Third, Section 306 of the Indian Succession Act governs continuation of a suit by or against a legal representative. It operates as substantive law.
Fourth, courts must read Order XXII of the Code of Civil Procedure harmoniously with Section 306 of the Indian Succession Act.
Fifth, courts must examine continuation of the “right to sue” under Order XXII Rule 2 read with Rule 4 as on the date of death.
Sixth, rights and liabilities to maintain a suit generally pass to the legal representative under Section 306. However, personal injury claims covered by the first exception to Section 306 abate. In contrast, claims for or against the estate of the deceased survive.
Case Details
Cause Title: Kumud Lall versus Suresh Chandra Roy (Dead) Through LRs and Others, with connected matter
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 454
Court: Supreme Court of India
Bench: Justice J.K. Maheshwari and Justice A.S. Chandurkar
Key Provisions: Section 306, Indian Succession Act, 1925; Order XXII Rule 2 and Rule 4, Code of Civil Procedure; Fatal Accidents Act, 1855; Legal Representatives’ Suits Act, 1855; Consumer Protection Act
