Legal heirs of deceased litigant not liable to pay damages for malicious prosecution: Jammu & Kashmir High Court

The High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh recently clarified that the right to sue for malicious prosecution is a personal right that cannot be enforced against or by the legal heirs of a deceased person [Krishan Gupta and others vs. D. D. Sadhotra and others]..Justice Sanjay Dhar explained that the personal, legal injuries ensuing from malicious prosecution do not survive after the death of the person concerned (the person who claims he was maliciously prosecuted or the person who is accused of maliciously prosecuting another).."Cause of action for damages for malicious prosecution is a right to sue or defend falls within the parameters of personal injuries therefore, such right cannot be enforced by a person against legal representative of the person who is responsible for lodging malicious prosecution against such person," the Court added in its March 26 order. .The Court made the observation while dealing with an appeal against a 1999 trial court order directing a man (defendant) to pay ₹2 lakhs as compensation for maliciously prosecuting to another (plaintiff). However, both the plaintiff and the defendant died before the High Court could decide on the appeal (also filed in 1999). .The Court was then faced with the question of whether the deceased defendant's legal heirs could be made to pay the damages to the legal heirs of the deceased plaintiff. The Court answered this question in the negative and held that the order to pay compensation for malicious prosecution cannot, in any case, be enforced against the legal heirs of the deceased defendant. Referring to Section 306 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, the Court explained that usually, the legal heirs of a deceased litigant can continue or defend against legal proceedings initiated by or against the litigant. However, the exception to this general rule arises in defamation cases or in other cases where the rights involved are personal in nature. In other words, defamation cases or cases involving personal injuries (including cases for malicious prosecution) would not survive once the original litigant (plaintiff or defendant) dies. "All rights to prosecute or defend any action in favour of or against a person, at time of his death, survive to and against his legal representatives except causes of action for defamation, assault or other personal injuries not causing the death of the party, meaning thereby that causes of action for defamation and personal injuries do not survive after the death of the person in whose favour or against whom the said cause of action had arisen," the Court's order stated..Therefore, the Court concluded that the present case concerning malicious prosecution would also not survive against the legal heirs of the deceased defendant. ."In view of the death of appellant/defendant No. 1, the right to enforce the entitlement to damages on account of malicious prosecution against the legal heirs of the deceased-appellant does not survive. In view of the above, the impugned judgment and decree to the extent of appellant (deceased-Sh. A. C. Gupta), is set aside," the Court said. .For similar reasons, the Court also rejected a plea to enhance the compensation ordered for by the trial court in 1999..Sanjeev Padha, Advocate appeared for the legal heirs of the deceased defendant (appellant before the High Court).None appeared for the respondents (legal heirs of the original plaintiff)..[Read Order]