Supreme Court Allows Appeals by Third-Party Purchasers Against Decree Affecting Their Possession: Leave to Appeal Granted as Sale Deed Holders Are 'Persons Aggrieved' Under Section 96 CPC. The Court held that the High Court erred in rejecting the application for leave to appeal, as the trial court's decree directly prejudiced the appellants' rights and interests.

  • 6
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The case involves appeals by third-party purchasers (appellants) who purchased sites from the General Power of Attorney holders of the original owners of certain lands in Bengaluru. The respondents (plaintiffs) filed suits seeking declarations that the agreements of sale executed in favor of a housing society were barred by limitation and for permanent injunction against interference with their possession. The trial court decreed the suits, declaring the agreements of sale as barred by limitation and granting a permanent injunction against the society and others. The appellants, who were not parties to the suit, sought leave to appeal against the decree, claiming that their ownership and possession were affected. The High Court dismissed their application, holding that they had an independent right and could file separate suits. The Supreme Court considered whether the appellants were 'persons aggrieved' entitled to appeal with leave. The Court held that the appellants' interests were directly and prejudicially affected by the decree, as they were in possession and claimed ownership based on sale deeds. The Court emphasized that the expression 'person aggrieved' includes those whose rights or interests are adversely affected, and the decree in question impacted the appellants' possession and title. The Court set aside the High Court's order and granted leave to appeal, directing the High Court to hear the appeals on merits. The judgment clarifies that third-party purchasers whose rights are affected by a decree can seek leave to appeal under Section 96 CPC.

Headnote

A) Civil Procedure - Locus Standi - Person Aggrieved - Leave to Appeal - Sections 96, 100, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - The appellants, who were not parties to the suit but claimed ownership and possession of suit property based on sale deeds executed by General Power of Attorney holders of the original owners, were held to be 'persons aggrieved' as the trial court's decree declaring the agreements of sale as barred by limitation and granting permanent injunction directly affected their interests. The High Court erred in rejecting their application for leave to appeal, as the decree prejudicially affected their rights. (Paras 14-22)

B) Civil Procedure - Appeal by Third Party - Prejudicial Effect - Sections 96, 100, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - A person who is not a party to a suit may prefer an appeal with the leave of the appellate court if he is prejudicially affected by the judgment and decree. The test is whether the decree binds the person or affects his interests. In this case, the appellants' possession and ownership were directly impacted by the decree, and they were entitled to challenge it. (Paras 15-20)

C) Civil Procedure - Impleadment - Order 1 Rule 10, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - The appellants' application for impleadment under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC was dismissed by the trial court, and the writ petition challenging that order was dismissed as infructuous after the suit was decided. However, the dismissal of the impleadment application did not bar the appellants from seeking leave to appeal as aggrieved persons. (Paras 7, 22)

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the appellants, who were not parties to the suit but claimed ownership and possession based on sale deeds executed by the General Power of Attorney holders of the original owners, have locus to file an appeal against the trial court's decree declaring the agreements of sale as barred by limitation and granting permanent injunction, and whether the High Court was justified in rejecting their application for leave to appeal.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the High Court's common judgment dated 21.02.2019, and granted leave to the appellants to file appeals against the trial court's judgment and decree. The High Court was directed to hear the appeals on merits in accordance with law.

Law Points

  • Person aggrieved
  • Leave to appeal
  • Third-party appeal
  • Section 96 CPC
  • Section 100 CPC
  • Order 1 Rule 10 CPC
  • Prejudicially affected
  • Locus standi
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2020 LawText (SC) (8) 45

Civil Appeal Nos. 2701-2704 of 2020 (Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 6952-6955 of 2020)

2020-01-01

Krishna Murari, J.

Sri V.N. Krishna Murthy & Anr. etc.etc.

Sri Ravikumar & Ors. etc.etc.

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Civil appeals against High Court order declining leave to appeal against trial court decree in suits for declaration and injunction.

Remedy Sought

Appellants sought leave to appeal against the trial court's decree declaring agreements of sale as barred by limitation and granting permanent injunction, claiming that the decree affected their ownership and possession.

Filing Reason

Appellants, who were not parties to the suit, claimed that the trial court's decree prejudicially affected their rights as they had purchased sites based on sale deeds executed by General Power of Attorney holders of the original owners.

Previous Decisions

Trial Court decreed the suit on 27.07.2016, declaring the agreements of sale as barred by limitation and granting permanent injunction. High Court dismissed the appellants' application for leave to appeal on 21.02.2019.

Issues

Whether the appellants, who were not parties to the suit, have locus to file an appeal against the trial court's decree? Whether the High Court was justified in rejecting the application for leave to appeal?

Submissions/Arguments

Appellants argued that their interest is directly involved as they became absolute owners of the sites based on sale deeds, and the trial court's decree holding the sale agreements time-barred and granting permanent injunction affects their possession. Respondents contended that the sale deeds are not referred to in the suit, the relief claimed by appellants is different, and they have no locus to challenge the decree.

Ratio Decidendi

A person who is not a party to a suit may prefer an appeal with the leave of the appellate court if he is prejudicially affected by the judgment and decree. The expression 'person aggrieved' includes those whose rights or interests are adversely affected. In this case, the appellants' possession and ownership based on sale deeds were directly impacted by the trial court's decree, making them 'persons aggrieved' entitled to leave to appeal.

Judgment Excerpts

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. 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. The expression 'aggrieved person' denotes an elastic and an elusive concept.

Procedural History

Respondents filed Original Suits O.S. Nos. 1529/2014, 1532/2014, 1534/2014, and 7758/2016 seeking declaration that agreements of sale were barred by limitation and for permanent injunction. Trial Court decreed the suits on 27.07.2016. Appellants, who were not parties, filed R.F.A. Nos. 1434/2017, 1435/2017, 1436/2017, and 1775/2017 with applications for leave to appeal. High Court dismissed the applications on 21.02.2019. Appellants then filed Special Leave Petitions in the Supreme Court, which were converted into Civil Appeals.

Acts & Sections

  • Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Section 96, Section 100, Order 1 Rule 10
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Allows Appeals by Third-Party Purchasers Against Decree Affecting Their Possession: Leave to Appeal Granted as Sale Deed Holders Are 'Persons Aggrieved' Under Section 96 CPC. The Court held that the High Court erred in rejecting the app...
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Allows Transfer Petition in Matrimonial Dispute for Convenience of Wife. Transfer Granted from Thane, Maharashtra to Gaya, Bihar Under Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 with Direction for Mediation.