On 21st Aug 2020, the Supreme Court of India, in the case of SRI V.N.KRISHNA MURTHY & ANR. v. SRI RAVIKUMAR & ORS. ETC. comprising of Justice Nageswara Rao, Justice Krishna Murari and Justice S. Ravindra Bhat in its findings stated that the, it is a settled legal proposition that a stranger cannot be permitted to file an appeal in any proceedings unless he satisfies the Court that he falls with the category of aggrieved persons. It is only where judgment and decree prejudicially affects a person who is not a party to the proceedings, he can prefer an appeal with the leave of the Appellate Court.
Facts
Disputes relating to land situated at Village Jakkur, Bengaluru, North Taluk. Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 herein who were recorded owner of the land in dispute executed a registered agreement of sale of the land in dispute in favor of Respondent, Karnataka State Khadi and Village Industries Worker’s House Building Co-operative Society Ltd. Besides executing a registered agreement to sale side by side they also executed a General Power of Attorney in favor of office bearers of the respondent society authorizing them to enter into sale transaction of the suit property on their behalf. It is to be taken note that General Power of Attorney was executed giving absolute rights to the Attorney to do all such acts which are necessary for the sale of the property.
Trial Court Judgment
“It is ordered and decreed that the suit of the plaintiffs is decreed. It is further ordered and decreed that the registered agreement of sale dated 30.10.1989 and 05.08.1992 is barred by limitation and not binding on the plaintiffs. It is further ordered and decreed that the defendant-society or anybody on their behalf permanently restrained from interfering with the plaintiff’s peacefully possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. It is further ordered and decreed that the parties are directed to bear their own costs.”
Dismissal of Application & Writ Petition
During the pendency of the suit proceedings, the appellants made an application under Order 1 Rule 10 (2) CPC for impleadment which was dismissed by the Trial Court.
The order was challenged by filing a Writ Petition before the High Court which came to be dismissed as infructuous as the suit itself came to be decided, in the meantime.
Appellant Submissions and Arguments
Appellant submitted before the Court that
- The interest of the appellants is directly involved in the subject matter of the suit.
- They have become absolute owners of the sites in question on the basis of sale deeds.
- The judgment of the Trial Court holding the sale agreements time-barred and granting a decree of 5 permanent injunction actually affects their interests as they are in possession of the suit property.
Respondent Submissions and Arguments
Respondents submit before the court that:
- The claim of the appellants herein is based on the sale deeds executed on the strength of the General Power of Attorney executed by the recorded owners of the suit property.
- There is neither any reference of the sale deeds in the suit nor the sale deeds refer to any agreement to sell.
- The relief claimed, if any, by the appellants based on sale deeds in their favor, is entirely different, and there is no locus to challenge the decree passed by the Trial Court and their application for leave to appeal has rightly been dismissed.
Supreme Court Findings & Judgment
Supreme Court in its findings stated that “the question which arises for our consideration is as to whether the appellants held the locus to question the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court and whether the High Court was justified in rejecting their leave to appeal.”
The Court stated that Section 96 and 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure provide for preferring an appeal from any original decree or from a decree in appeal respectively. The aforesaid provisions do not enumerate the categories of persons who can file an appeal. However, it is a settled legal proposition that a stranger cannot be permitted to file an appeal in any proceedings unless he satisfies the Court that he falls with the category of aggrieved persons. It is only where judgment and decree prejudicially affects a person who is not a party to the proceedings, he can prefer an appeal with the leave of the Appellate Court.
In the present matter, appellants can neither be said to be aggrieved persons nor bound by the judgment and decree of the Trial Court in any manner. The relief claimed in the suit was the cancellation of the agreement to sell. On the other hand, the sale deeds which were the basis of the claim of the appellants were executed on the basis of General Power of Attorney and had nothing to do with the agreement to sell which was the subject matter of the suit. The judgment and decree of the Trial Court are in no sense judgment in rem and it is binding only as between the plaintiffs and defendants of the suit, and not upon the appellants.
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
