LexHARDEVINDER SINGH versus PARAMJIT SINGH & OTHERS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2013] 1 S.C.R. 903 HARDEVINDER SINGH v. PARAMJIT SINGH & OTHERS (Civil Appeal No. 102 of 2013) JANUARY 7, 2013 [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN AND DIPAK MISRA, JJ.] A B Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - ss. 96 and 100 - Second appeal - Person aggrieved - Legal injury - Plaintiff claiming to be a co-sharer in respect of the property in C question filed suit challenging a Will- Defendant no.5, brother of the plaintiff, supported his case - In appeal at the instance of defendant nos. 1 to 4, the plaintiff entered into a settlement with the contesting defendants who had preferred the appeal and the appellate court set aside the decree passed by the D trial court - Second appeal filed by defendant no.5 held not maintainable by the High Court - Held: If a person is prejudicially or adversely affected by the decree, he can maintain an appeal - On facts, the decree prejudicially affects the defendant No.5 and, therefore, he could have preferred E an appeal - The grievance pertained to the nature and character of the property and the trial court had decreed the suit - He stood benefited by such a decree - The same having been unsettled, the benefit accrued in his favour became extinct - He had suffered a legal injury by virtue of F the overturning of the decree - His legal right was affected - Indubitably, appellant was a person aggrieved and was prejudicially affected by the decree and, hence, the appeal could not have been thrown overboard treating as not maintainable - Matter remitted to High Court. The plaintiff claiming to be a co-sharer in respect of . the property in question filed suit challenging a Will. The defendant no.5, the brother of the plaintiff, supported his 903 G H 904 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 1 S.C.R. A case. In an appeal at the instance of defendant nos. 1 to 4, the plaintiff entered into a settlement with the contesting defendants who had preferred the appeal and the appellate court set aside the judgment and decree passed by the trial court and dismissed the suit. The B second appeal filed by defendant no.5 was held not maintainable by the High Court, and therefore the present appeal. Allowing the appeal, the Court C HELD: 1.1. Sections 96 and 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 make provisions for preferring an appeal from any original appeal or from a decree in an appeal respectively. The aforesaid provisions do not enumerate the categories of persons who can file an appeal. If a D judgment and decree prejudicially affects a person, needless to emphasize, he can prefer an appeal. [Para 13] [911-C-D] 1.2. If a person is prejudicially or adversely affected E by the decree, he can maintain an appeal. In the present case, the plaintiff claiming to be a co-sharer filed the suit and challenged the will. The defendant No.5, the brother of the plaintiff, supported his case. In an appeal at the instance of the defendant Nos. 1 to 4, the judgment and decree was overturned. The plaintiff entered into a F settlement with the contesting defendants who had preferred the appeal. Such a decree prejudicially affects the defendant No. 5 and, therefore, he could have preferred an appeal. The grievance pertained to the nature and character of the property and the trial court G had decreed the suit. He stood benefited by such a decree. The same having been unsettled, the benefit accrued in his favour became extinct. He had suffered a legal injury by virtue of the over turning of the decree. His legal right has been affected. [Para 20] [914-E-H; 915-A] H HARDEVINDER SINGH v. PARAMJIT SINGH & ORS. 905 1.3. Indubitably, the appellant was a person A . aggrieved and was prejudicially affected by the decree and, hence, the appeal could not have been thrown overboard treating as not maintainable. The judgment of the High Court is set aside, the second appeal preferred by the appellant is treated to be maintainable in law and B the matter is remitted to the High Court. [Paras 21, 22) [915-E-F] Smt. Jatan Kanwar Go/cha v. Mis. Go/cha Properties Private Ltd. AIR 1971 SC 374: 1971 (3) SCR 247; State of C Punjab v. Amar Singh and Another AIR 1974 SC 994: 1974 (2) SCC 70; Baldev Singh v. Surinder Mohan Sharma and Others (2003) 1 SCC 34: 2002 (4) Suppl. SCR 43; Sahadu Gangaram Bhagade v. Special Deputy Collector, Ahmednagar and Another (1970) 1 SCC 685: 1971 (1) SCR 146; Banarsi and Others v. Ram Phal AIR 2003 SC 1989: D 2003 (2) SCR 22 and Phoo/
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.