9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (8) TMI 950 - SC - Indian LawsLocus to question the judgement - 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? - HELD THAT - Section 96 and 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure provide for preferring an appeal from any original decree or from 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 a judgment and decree prejudicially affects a person who is not party to the proceedings, he can prefer an appeal with the leave of the Appellate Court. Reference be made to the observation of this Court in SMT. JATAN KANWAR GOLCHA VERSUS GOLCHA PROPERTIES (P.) LTD. (IN LIQUIDATION) 1970 (12) TMI 60 - SUPREME COURT where it was held that 'It is well settled that a person who is not a party to the suit may prefer an appeal with the leave of the Appellate Court and such leave should be granted if he would be prejudicially affected by the Judgment.' The 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 cancellation of 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 subject matter of suit. The judgment and decree of the Trial Court is in no sense a judgment in rem and it is binding only as between the Plaintiffs and Defendants of the suit, and not upon the Appellants. The Appellants have thus failed to demonstrate that they are prejudicially or adversely affected by the decree in question or any of their legal rights stands jeopardized so as to bring them within the ambit of the expression 'person aggrieved' entitling them to maintain appeal against the decree. There are no infirmity in the judgment of the High Court dismissing the application filed by the Appellants seeking leave to appeal against the decree. The appeals, accordingly, stand dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the appellants had the locus to question the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court. 2. Whether the High Court was justified in rejecting the appellants' leave to appeal. Detailed Analysis: 1. Locus Standi of the Appellants: The appellants argued that their interests were directly involved in the subject matter of the suit because they had become absolute owners of the sites in question based on sale deeds executed by the General Power of Attorney holders of the recorded owners. They contended that the Trial Court's judgment, which held the sale agreements time-barred and granted a decree of permanent injunction, adversely affected their interests as they were in possession of the suit property. The respondents countered that the appellants' claim was based on sale deeds executed by the General Power of Attorney holders and that these sale deeds were not referenced in the suit. Hence, the appellants had no locus to challenge the decree passed by the Trial Court. The Supreme Court noted that Section 96 and 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure allow appeals from any original decree or decree in appeal, but do not specify who can file an appeal. It is a settled legal proposition that a stranger cannot file an appeal unless they fall within the category of aggrieved persons. The Court referred to various precedents, including Smt. Jatan Kumar Golcha v. Golcha Properties Private Ltd. and State of Punjab and Ors. v. Amar Singh and Anr., which established that a person not party to a suit may prefer an appeal with the leave of the Appellate Court if they are prejudicially affected by the judgment. The Court concluded that the appellants were neither aggrieved persons nor bound by the judgment and decree of the Trial Court. The relief claimed in the suit was the cancellation of the agreement to sell, which had nothing to do with the sale deeds executed in favor of the appellants. The judgment and decree of the Trial Court were binding only between the plaintiffs and defendants of the suit, and not upon the appellants. 2. Justification of the High Court's Decision: The High Court had dismissed the appellants' application for leave to appeal, observing that the declaratory relief granted by the Trial Court did not affect the appellants' interests. The appellants were advised to protect their possession by filing independent suits rather than challenging the judgment in the suit. The Supreme Court affirmed the High Court's decision, stating that the appellants failed to demonstrate how the judgment and decree of the Trial Court adversely or prejudicially affected them. The decree was confined to a declaration regarding the agreement to sell and an injunction against the defendant society, with no mention of the sale deeds executed in favor of the appellants. The Court emphasized that merely claiming to be prejudicially affected by the decree was insufficient. The appellants needed to demonstrate that their legal rights were adversely affected, which they failed to do. Consequently, the appellants were not considered 'persons aggrieved' and were not entitled to maintain an appeal against the decree. Conclusion: The Supreme Court found no infirmity in the High Court's judgment dismissing the appellants' application for leave to appeal. The appeals were dismissed, and the parties were directed to bear their own costs.
|
