1. Property title dispute — Second appeal by purchaser — Application of Section 16(3), Hindu Marriage Act, 1956. (Para 3 )
Back
Next 
1999 Supreme(SC) 99
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
S.B.Majmudar : U.C.Banerjee
Govindan
Versus
Subramaniam
Case No. : 459 of 1999
Date of Decision : 2/1/99
A purchaser of property has the locus standi to maintain an appeal to establish that the vendors possessed a valid legal title to convey the property, even if the vendors themselves do not appeal, as the purchaser holds the primary interest in the subject matter.
Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order 41, Rule 4 - Locus standi to maintain appeal - Purchaser of property has the locus standi to maintain a second appeal to demonstrate that the vendors had legal title to convey the property - The fact that vendors have not filed any appeal does not preclude the purchaser from doing so, as the real interest in the disputed properties rests with the purchaser after the sale. (Para 3)
(B) Hindu Marriage Act, 1956 - Section 16(3) - Substantial question of law - Where a substantial question of law has been framed by the court, the matter should be decided on merits after hearing the parties rather than being dismissed on the ground of locus standi if the appellant has a legitimate interest in the subject matter. (Para 3, 4)
Facts of the case:
A purchaser of disputed properties filed a second appeal. The court below dismissed the appeal on the ground that the purchaser had no locus standi to maintain it, observing that the vendors of the property had not filed any appeal.
Findings of Court:
The court held that Order 41, Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure applies to such cases. Once vendors have sold the disputed properties, they typically lose interest in prosecuting the proceedings, and the primary interest shifts to the purchaser to establish that the vendors had the legal title necessary to convey the property.
Issues: Whether a purchaser of property has the locus standi to maintain a second appeal to prove the title of the vendors when the vendors themselves have not filed an appeal.
Ratio Decidendi: A purchaser of property is entitled to maintain an appeal to prove the validity of the title conveyed to them by the vendors, as the purchaser is the party with the real interest in the litigation following the transfer of property.
Result: Appeal allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Locus standi of a purchaser to maintain a second appeal to establish vendors' legal title when vendors have not filed an appeal. (Para 3 )
3. Purchaser has real interest in proving vendors' title; Order 41, Rule 4, Code of Civil Procedure applies regardless of whether vendors filed an appeal. (Para 3 )
4. A purchaser of disputed property possesses locus standi to maintain an appeal to establish that the vendors held legal title to convey the property. (Para 3 )
5. Impugned judgment set aside — Second appeal restored to High Court for decision on the substantial question of law on merits. (Para 4 )
6. Does a purchaser of property have locus standi to appeal a decision regarding the vendors' title if the vendors themselves do not appeal?
Yes. A purchaser has a real interest in demonstrating that the vendors had legal title to convey the property, and Order 41, Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure applies in such cases. (Para 3 )
(1) LEAVE granted.
(2) WITH the consent of learned counsel for the parties the appeal was taken up for final disposal forthwith.
(3) THE short question is whether the High Court in the impugned judgment was justified in taking the view that defendant No.1 who was one of the appellants in the Second Appeal had no locus standi to maintain the same. It was held that defendant No. 2 was purchaser from respondents Nos. 4 to 6. But it is difficult to appreciate as to how it can be said that he had no locus standi to maintain the second appeal and for demonstrating that his vendors had legal title to convey the property to him. Order 41, Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure also will apply in such a case. The observation of the High Court that the appellants vendors have not filed any appeal would therefore not come in the way. It is obvious that once they had sold out the disputed properties to the appellant-defendant No. 2 they would not be interested in prosecuting the proceedings any further and the real interest would be of only the defendant No. 2 - the appellant herein to try to show that his vendors had legal title to convey the property in question. We may not be understood to have expressed any opinion on the merits of the controversy between the parties. But what all we find is that the High Court while dealing with the legal position has held that the appeal filed by the appellant to be not maintainable. It is pertinent to note that the High Court has framed substantial question of law as mentioned in paragraph 3 of the judgment. It reads as under:
"WHETHER the Courts below have properly appreciated and applied the principles under Section 16(3) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1956, as amended by Act 68 of 1976, to the facts of the present case ?"
(4) THIS question is not answered at all on the ground that the appellant had no locus standi to file the appeal. Consequently, the impugned-judgment and order are set aside The second appeal is restored to the file of the High Court with a request to redecide the same on the substantial question of law which has been framed and answer the same on merits after hearing the parties. We express no opinion on the said substantial question of law. It is obvious that the same will have to be decided by the High Court in accordance with law. The appeal is accordingly allowed. There would be no order as to costs.
