Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
L. NAGESWARA RAO, KRISHNA MURARI, S. RAVINDRA BHAT, JJ.
SRI V.N.KRISHNA MURTHY & ANR. ETC.ETC. – APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
SRI RAVIKUMAR & ORS. ETC.ETC. – RESPONDENT(S)
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 2701-2704 OF 2020 (ARISING OUT OF SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NOS. 6952-6955 OF 2020)
Decided On : 21-08-2020
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Sections 96 and 100 read with Order 1 Rule 10 (2) – Locus Standi to file appeal – Suit challenging agreement to sell – A stranger cannot be permitted to file appeal in any proceedings unless he satisfies Court that he falls within category of aggrieved persons – It is only where a judgment and decree prejudicially affects a person who is not party to proceedings, he can prefer appeal with leave of Appellate Court – Expression ‘person aggrieved’ does not include a person who suffers from a psychological or an imaginary injury – A person aggrieved must necessarily be one whose right or interest has been adversely affected or jeopardized – Appellants can neither be said to be aggrieved persons nor bound by judgment and decree of Trial Court in any manner – Relief claimed in suit was cancellation of agreement to sell – Sale deeds which were basis of claim of appellants were executed on the basis of General Power of Attorney and had nothing to do with agreement to sell which was subject matter of suit – Judgment and decree of Trial Court is in no sense a judgment in rem and it is binding only as between plaintiffs and defendants of suit and not upon appellants – Appellants have failed to place any material or demonstrate as to how judgment and decree passed by Trial Court adversely or prejudicially affects them – Mere saying that appellants are prejudicially affected by decree is not sufficient – It has to be demonstrated that decree affects legal rights of appellants and would have adverse effect when carried – No infirmity in judgment of High Court dismissing application filed by appellants seeking leave to appeal against decree – Appeals dismissed. (Paras 15, 17, 19, 21, 22, 23 and 24)
Facts of the case:
Instant appeals have been filed against the common judgment dated 21.02.2019 passed by the High Court of Karnataka, Principal Bench at Bengaluru in R.F.A. Nos. 1434 of 2017, 1435 of 2017, 1436 of 2017 and 1775 of 2017 declining to grant leave to file an appeal. The question which arises for our consideration is as to 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.
Findings of Court:
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 appellants and would have adverse effect when carried out.
Result : Appeals dismissed.
JUDGMENT
KRISHNA MURARI, J.
The instant appeals have been filed against the common judgment dated 21.02.2019 passed by the High Court of Karnataka, Principal Bench at Bengaluru in R.F.A. Nos. 1434 of 2017, 1435 of 2017, 1436 of 2017 and 1775 of 2017 declining to grant leave to file an appeal.
2. Necessary facts in brief for the adjudication of controversy can be summarized as under :
Disputes relates to land comprised in Survey No. 105/3 measuring 37 guntas, Survey No. 105/9 measuring 34 guntas and Survey No. 105/4B measuring 20 guntas, situate at Village Jakkur, Bengaluru, North Taluk. Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 herein who were recorded owner of the land in dispute executed a registered agreement of sale of the land in dispute in favour of Respondent, Karnataka State Khadi and Village Industries Worker’s House Building Co-operative Society Ltd. Besides executing registered agreement to sale dated 31.10.1989 and 05.08.1992 side by side they also executed a General Power of Attorney in favour of office bearers of the respondent society authorizing them to enter into sale transaction of the suit property on their behalf. It is to be taken note of that General Power of Attorney was executed giving absolute rights to the Attorney to do all such acts which are necessary for sale of the property.
3. On the strength of General Power of Attorney, sale deeds in respect of land in dispute was executed by the Attorneys in favour of appellants on various dates.
4. Respondents–Plaintiffs filed four Original Suits being O.S. Nos. 1529 of 2014, 1532 of 2014, 1534 of 2014 and 7758 of 2016 seeking the following reliefs :
a) To declare that the registered agreement to sell dated 05.08.1992, as barred by limitation in view of time being the essence of contract, and beyond the period of limitation, be declared as null and void, illegal unenforceable and inoperative and not binding on the plaintiffs.
b) To declare and cancel the registered further agreement for sell dated 31.10.1989 executed by Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 in favour of defendant society which is registered as document 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 were filed on the allegations that suit property is ancestral property and the plaintiffs were co-owner and thus defendant had no right to execute the agreement of sale ignoring the interest of the plaintiff. It was also pleaded that since the agreement of sale did not culminate into a sale transaction, the same are barred by law of limitation and are thus unenforceable. It may be relevant to mention at this stage that the sale deeds executed in favour of appellants by the attorneys of the recorded land holder were not questioned in the suit and were neither subject matter of dispute therein nor any relief was claimed in their respect.
6. The Trial Court vide its judgment dated 27.07.2016, decreed the suit by pas
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
