Point of law : In order to acquire the status of aggrieved party, the person must have legal interest and an enforceable right which would in turn allowing him to question the decree or order by preferring appeal, though he may not be a party to the suit or proceedings. The applicants who claim their interest on the basis of the agreements to sell as above could not be said to be holding any interest in the property to be within the definition of legally aggrieved or prejudiced persons. As the applicants are not 'aggrieved party' vis-a-vis the compromise decree having regard to their legal status, they could not be clothed with right to appeal. They do not have 'appelable interest' in connection with the compromise decree.

JUDGMENT :

N.V.ANJARIA, J.

1. What the applicants in this Civil Application seek is leave to appeal against judgment and decree dated 29th July, 2020 passed by learned 2nd Additional Senior Civil Judge, Patan in Special Civil Suit No.31 of 2012. The said suit was for specific performance instituted by the plaintiff Patel Pravinbhai Kachrabhai - respondent No.1 herein against Patel Vasantkumar and Patel Jyotsnaben Vasantkumar – respondent Nos.2 and 3. It ended up with a settlement between the parties, on the basis of which Purshis Exh.116 was tendered, whereupon the compromise decree between the parties to the suit came to be passed by the court.

2. The precise question that falls for consideration is whether in the facts of the case the applicants herein, who were not party to the suit which resulted into compromise decree between the parties to the suit, could be said to be 'aggrieved person' to be entitled to be conferred right to appeal and to be consequentially granted leave to appeal.

3. The basic facts may be set out. The Special Civil Suit of the plaintiff for specific performance was based on agreement to sell dated 29th June, 2008 read with supplementary agreement dated 27th September, 2011 executed by the defendants in relation to land survey No.800/1 situated at Village Gungadipati, Taluka Patan. As per the compromise Purshis, the defendants admitted the said agreements to sell for the agreed consideration of Rs.48,42,062/-, out of which Rs.21,064/- was paid as earnest money. The balance amount was paid by the plaintiff to the defendants, and in turn, the defendants handed over the possession of the subject matter land to the plaintiff. The court passed decree in terms of the compromise as per the Purshis Exh.116.

3.1 The applicants herein stand dissatisfied with the said compromise decree. It is their case that the plaintiff had executed on 05th August, 2008, an agreement to sell in favour of one Patel Bharatkumar Narandas, Patel Mukeshkumar Kantilal, Patel Sanjaykumar Chimanlal and Patel Rakeshkumar Ishwarlal. Said Patel Bharatkumar Narandas and others thereafter executed agreement to sell in favour of the applicants and that the amount of consideration was paid. The applicants claimed that they had acquired interest in the subject matter property, and filed application Exh.112 in the Special Civil Suit to get impleaded as party plaintiffs. It appears that application Exh.112 was rejected along with the passing of compromise decree. There is no further challenge thereto.

3.2 The assertion of the applicants in this Civil Application in support of their prayer to grant leave to appeal against the aforementioned compromise decree, is that because of the said compromise decree dated 29th July, 2020, a serious prejudice has occurred to them. It is the case that the applicants are vitally interested in adjudication of the said suit which was compromised. It is also the contention that application Exh.112 came to be rejected without affording proper opportunity to them.

4. Heard learned senior advocate Mr.H.M. Parikh for the applicants and learned advocate Mr.Hriday Buch for respondent No.1, at length.

4.1 Learned advocate for the applicants heavily relied on the decision of the Full Bench of this Court in Shakina Sultanali Sundesara (Momin) v. Shia Imam Ismaili Momin Jamat Samaj [2020 (1) GLR 586] to submit that the applicants are entitled to maintain appeal against the compromise decree, since the applicants are 'aggrieved party'. It was submitted that in the aforesaid decision, the Court considered as to what remedy the aggrieved party has against the consent decree. Learned advocate for the applicants reiterated on the basis of the decision of the Full Bench that the applicants who are the third party in Special Civil Suit No.31 of 2012 have interest in the subject matter property in view of the agreement to sell standing in their favour, therefore though they are not party, they are required to be permitted to prefer First