IMPORTANT POINT
The court affirmed the right to withdraw an appeal when no cross-objections are filed, emphasizing limited grounds for refusal.

JUDGMENT :

MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA, J.

1. The appellants have filed I.A. No. 3 of 2024 for withdrawal of the Appeal Suit.

2. The appellants were the plaintiffs in a Suit filed before the Trial Court for declaration that the appellants are the absolute owners of the suit schedule properties and are in exclusive possession over the same. The appellants also prayed for restraining the defendant No. 4/Indian Overseas Bank from proceeding with the sale of the suit schedule properties.

3. The respondent No. 1 in the appeal i.e., Indian Overseas Bank is the defendant No. 4 and the other 3 respondents in the appeal are the defendant Nos. 1-3 in the Suit.

4. By the impugned judgment dated 19.10.2005, the Suit was decreed in favour of the appellants and against the defendant Nos. 1-3 for declaration of title and exclusive possession over the suit schedule properties. The Suit was however dismissed against the defendant No. 4/Bank (respondent No. 1 in the appeal).

5. A curious situation has however arisen pursuant to the appellants’ plea for withdrawal of the appeal. The respondent No. 1/Bank supports the appellants while the respondent Nos. 2-4 vehemently opposes the said withdrawal. The opposing respondents however do not have any objection if the appeal is dismissed as withdrawn without further reference to the facts which led to the appellants’ prayer for withdrawal.

6. Learned Senior Counsel representing the appellants and counsel representing the respondents No. 1/Bank and respondent Nos. 2 and 3 have made detailed submissions including referring to the proceeding pending before the Debts Recovery Tribunal (D.R.T.) against the respondent Nos. 2-4.

7. A brief background to the appeal should first be stated. The defendant Nos. 1-3 and their family members had purchased the suit schedule properties vide a registered Sale Deed dated 16.11.1966 and became owners of the suit schedule properties by a registered partition deed dated 21.07.1970. The appellants (plaintiff Nos. 1-6) purchased 3 items of the suit schedule properties under registered Sale Deeds dated 12.12.1988, 13.12.1988 and 14.12.1988 from the defendant Nos. 1-3. The registration of the suit schedule properties was done in 1994. The possession of the properties however was delivered to the appellants under Agreements of Sale in 1985.

8. In February, 2004, the appellants/plaintiffs came to know that the defendant No. 4/Bank had made a claim for attachment of the property and for proclamation of sale on a prior mortgage of the property which had not been disclosed by the defendant Nos. 1-3 or their General Power of Attorney Holder. The appellants filed O.S. No. 84 of 2004 before the Trial Court in these circumstances for declaration of title and for restraining the defendant No. 4/Bank from interfering with the appellants’ peaceful possession of the suit schedule property.

9. The defendants filed their respective written statements in the Suit denying the contentions of the appellants/plaintiffs and claiming under the prior mortgage to the Agreement of Sale and the Sale Deed, which the defendants executed in favour of the plaintiffs.

10. The Trial Court framed 5 issues and a 6th additional issue in the Suit which included the plaintiffs’ claim for declaration of title and exclusive possession and whether the suit schedule properties were the subject matter of Recovery Certificates issued by the D.R.T. Ernakulam, in favour of the defendant No. 4/Bank. The additional issue related to the jurisdiction of the Court for trying the Suit in view of the appeal mechanism provided under Section 30 of The Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993, as amended.

11. The Trial Court passed a detailed judgment (impugned in the present appeal) and decided in favour of the appellants/plaintiffs for grant of relief for declaration of title and exclusive possession over the suit schedule properties against the defendant Nos. 1-3 (respondent Nos. 2-4 in the appeal). The Trial Court how