9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (8) TMI 950X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... TIES (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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bearing No. 1194/92-93, in book No. I, stored in vol No. 27 at pages 86-88 in the office of the Sub Registrar Yelahanka Bangalore as well as unregistered agreement to sell dated 23.05.1988 as barred by time, alternatively in case of default by the 3rd Defendant, this Hon'ble Court be pleased to execute cancellation agreement to sell through court commissioner. c) The 3rd Defendant be directed to execute a registered cancellation deed before the jurisdictional Sub Registrar. d) To award and issue a judgment and decree of permanent injunction restraining the Defendant/s, their agents or anybody acting on their behalf from interfering with the possession suit Schedule property. e) Injunction restraining the Defendants their agents, servants, officials, assigns or anyone acting or claiming on their behalf from demolishing or in any way entering upon or in any way interfering property. f) The Defendants be directed to pay the cost of the proceedings. g) And further the Hon'ble Court be pleased to award pass such other just and equitable relief/s as this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the circumstances of the suit and award costs in the interest of justice and equity. 5. Suits w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rformance. Be that as it may, all the applicants/Appellants claim to be in possession of their respective sites on the strength of the sale deeds executed by the General Power of Attorney holders of the owners of the lands. What is stated is that the agreements of sale were executed in favour of the Housing Society and that Power of Attorney was executed in favour of some persons who are office bearers of the Housing Society. If this is the position, I think that the applicants/Appellants do have an independent right which they appear to have derived on the basis of the sale deeds executed by the owners of the land. It may be a fact that the sale deeds were executed by the Power of Attorney holders of the owner, but in reality those sale deeds were executed by the owners of the land and, therefore, it can be said that the nature of declaratory relief granted by the Trial Court in the suit does not affect the interest of the applicants/Appellants. The Trial Court further went on to observe that; if they are in possession of the sites purchased by them, they have to protect their possession by filing independent suits. I do not think they have a remedy by filing an appeal challenging ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt. 16. This Court in State of Punjab and Ors. v. Amar Singh and Anr. (1974) 2 SCC 70 while dealing with the maintainability of appeal by a person who is not party to a suit has observed thus: Firstly, there is a catena of authorities which, following the dictum of Lindley, L.J., in re Securities Insurance Co., [(1894) 2 Ch 410] have laid down the Rule that a person who is not a party to a decree or order may with the leave of the Court, prefer an appeal from such decree or order if he is either bound by the order or is aggrieved by it or is prejudicially affected by it. 17. In Baldev Singh v. Surinder Mohan Sharma and Ors. (2003) 1 SCC 34, this Court held that an appeal Under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, would be maintainable only at the instance of a person aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment and decree. While dealing with the concept of person aggrieved, it was observed in paragraph 15 as under: A person aggrieved to file an appeal must be one whose right is affected by reason of the judgment and decree sought to be impugned. 18. In A. Subash Babu v. State of A.P. and Anr. (2011) 7 SCC 616, this Court held as under: The expression 'aggrieved person& ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Plaintiffs and Defendants of the suit, and not upon the Appellants. 22. Though it has been vehemently contended before us and also pleaded before the High Court that the judgment and decree of the Trial Court affects the Appellants adversely. The Appellants have failed to place any material or demonstrate as to how the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court adversely or prejudicially affects them. Mere saying that the Appellants are prejudicially affected by the decree is not sufficient. It has to be demonstrated that the decree affects the legal rights of the Appellants and would have adverse effect when carried out. Facts of the case clearly demonstrate that suit which has been decreed is confined only to a declaration sought in respect of an agreement to sell. Injunction was also sought only against the Defendant-society or its officers or assigns. There is not even a whisper in the entire plaint or in suit proceedings about the sale deed executed in favour of the Appellants by the General Power of Attorney holders or even for that matter in the judgment and decree of the Trial Court. 23. The Appellants have thus failed to demonstrate that they are prejudicially or ad ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
