INTRODUCTION:
The legal maxim “Actio Personalis Moritur Cum Persona” means “a personal right of action dies with the person.” This principle underscores that personal claims, such as those arising from torts or contracts, typically cannot be pursued after the death of the involved parties. Originating in medieval legal tradition, this maxim has evolved, with courts recognizing exceptions, particularly in defamation and personal injury cases. Landmark judgments have shaped its interpretation, reflecting the balance between strict adherence to legal doctrine and the pursuit of justice in contemporary legal systems.
MEANING OF THE WORD:
Actio personalis moritur cum persona, in bold and literal terms, means the personal right of action dies with the person.
- Actio stands for ‘an act’ or ‘an action’
- Personalis stands for ‘personal.’
- Moritur stands for ‘death’
- Cum stands for ‘with’
- Persona stands for ‘person.’
ORIGIN:
The concept of “Actio Personalis Moritur Cum Persona” originated in medieval legal tradition, with its earliest citation in a 1496 case involving defamation. In this case, the judgement was to pay the money by a woman to pay damages, but she died before that, which led to the establishment of the principle that personal actions cannot be continued after death. The maxim gained prominence through subsequent judicial decisions, notably in the 1523 case Cleymond v. Vincent, and was popularised by legal scholars like Edward Coke. Over time, its application has evolved, with modern statutes recognizing exceptions, particularly in tort and contract law contexts.
APPLICATION OF THE PRINCIPLE:
The principle of “actio personalis moritur cum persona” applies primarily in tort and contract law, indicating that personal claims typically cease upon the death of either party involved.
Defamation: Claims can continue posthumously, allowing the deceased’s estate to defend their reputation.
Assault: Personal representatives may pursue claims for injuries sustained before death, recognizing the injustice of letting such claims expire.
Damages: Claims for damages due to negligence or fraud may survive, enabling executors to seek compensation on behalf of the deceased.
These exceptions reflect the evolving legal interpretations that ensure justice even after a party’s death, invoking a sense of fairness and balance in the audience.
EXCEPTIONS:
Survival of Actions statutes: Allowing certain claims to survive the death of either party, such as property disputes, contract breaches, or tort claims involving financial damages.
Wrongful death statutes: If the claim directly benefits the deceased’s estate or survivors, courts often allow continuation.
Actions Against Estates: Claims can be pursued against the deceased’s estate for liabilities incurred during their lifetime.
LANDMARK JUDGEMENT
- Pinchon’s case( 1611):
– This case established the contractual liability of the Deceased debtor. Whether the estate is transmittable. The court said that executors could be held liable for the debts. - Hambly v. Trott (1776):
– It is one of the founding cases of this maxim because it states that the action of the trespass would fail when it is against the person, not the property. Conversion and Trover of the estate would be successful while returning from the deceased. - Phillips v. Homfray (1883):
– This case reinforced the application of the maxim in England. The court held that purely personal claims (e.g., pain and suffering) did not survive the claimant’s death.
APPLICATION IN INDIA:
Indian courts have progressively narrowed the application of “actio personalis moritur cum persona” to prevent unjust outcomes. The maxim primarily applies to personal actions ex delicto that do not result in death and where the relief sought is personal to the deceased. However, in cases involving heritable rights or where the cause of action affects the deceased’s estate, the right to sue or be sued survives the individual’s death. This nuanced approach ensures that the maxim does not impede justice, especially in matters where the rights and obligations extend beyond the personal realm of the deceased.
LANDMARK INDIAN CASE LAWS:
Girja Nandini Devi & Ors. v. Bijendra Narain Choudhury (1966): In this landmark case, the Supreme Court of India observed that the maxim “actio personalis moritur cum persona” has a limited application. The Court clarified that this principle operates primarily in actions ex delicto (arising from a wrong), such as claims for damages due to defamation, assault, or other personal injuries not resulting in death. The Court emphasised that the maxim does not apply to actions where the relief sought can be enjoyed after the individual’s death or granting it would not be futile.
M. Veerappa v. Evelyn Sequeira & Ors. (1988): The Supreme Court reiterated that the maxim applies to personal actions and does not extend to actions affecting proprietary rights or obligations that survive the deceased. The Court held that the right to sue for damages for personal injuries does not survive the death of the injured person, thereby affirming the limited scope of the maxim.
Prabhakara Adiga v. Gowri & Ors. (2017): The Supreme Court further limited the application of the maxim, stating that it does not apply to cases where the right litigated is heritable. The Court held that a decree for a permanent injunction does not diminish with the death of the judgement-debtor and can be enforced against their legal representatives.
AUTHOR:
Y. J. Jeslin Jesiya, 5th year BBA. LL.B (Hons.), Saveetha School of Law, Chennai