LexSRI V.N. KRISHNA MURTHY & ANR. ETC. ETC. versus SRI RAVIKUMAR & ORS. ETC. ETC.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B C D E F G H 1148 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 7 S.C.R. SRI V.N. KRISHNA MURTHY & ANR. ETC. ETC. v. SRI RAVIKUMAR & ORS. ETC. ETC. (Civil Appeal Nos. 2701-2704 of 2020) AUGUST 21, 2020 [L. NAGESWARA RAO, KRISHNA MURARI AND S. RAVINDRA BHAT, JJ.] Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – ‘Judgment in rem’; ‘aggrieved party’ – When not – Owners of the land in dispute executed an agreement to sell in favour of a Society – A General Power of Attorney (GPA) in favour of office bearers of the Society was also executed authorizing them to enter into sale transaction of the property – Sale deeds in respect of the property executed in favour of appellants – Suits filed by respondents-plaintiffs claiming to be co-owners of the property inter alia seeking cancellation of the agreement to sell – Decreed – Appellants sought leave to appeal against the decree – Declined by High Court – Held: Relief claimed in the suit was cancellation of agreement to sell while, the sale deeds which were the basis of appellants’ claim were executed on the basis of GPA and had nothing to do with the agreement to sell which was subject matter of the suit – Judgment and decree of the trial court was not a judgment in rem and was binding only on the plaintiffs and defendants of the suit, and not upon the appellants – Appellants neither prejudicially or adversely affected by the decree in question nor any of their legal rights stood jeopardized bringing them within the ambit of ‘person aggrieved’ entitled to maintain appeal against the decree – No infirmity in the judgment of High Court. Words & Expressions – ‘person aggrieved’, in context of a judgment/decree – Meaning of – Discussed – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – ss.96 and 100 – Scope of – Discussed. Dismissing the appeals, the Court HELD: 1.1 Section 96 and 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure provide for preferring an appeal from any original [2020] 7 S.C.R. 1148 1148 A B C D E F G H 1149 decree or from decree in appeal respectively but do not enumerate the categories of persons who can file an appeal. However, a stranger cannot be permitted to file an appeal in any proceedings unless he satisfies the Court that he falls with the category of aggrieved persons. It is only where a judgment and decree prejudicially affects a person who is not party to the proceedings, he can prefer an appeal with the leave of the Appellate Court. [Para 15][1154-E-F] 1.2 Appellants can neither be said to be aggrieved persons nor bound by the judgment and decree of the Trial Court in any manner. The relief claimed in the suit was cancellation of agreement to sell. The sale deeds which were the basis of the claim of the appellants were executed on the basis of General Power of Attorney, and had nothing to do with the agreement to sell which was subject matter of suit. The judgment and decree of the Trial Court is in no sense a judgment in rem and is binding only as between the plaintiffs and defendants of the suit, and not upon the appellants. Suit is confined only to a declaration sought in respect of an agreement to sell. Injunction was also sought only against the defendant-society or its officers or assigns. The appellants failed to demonstrate that they are prejudicially or adversely affected by the decree in question or any of their legal rights stands jeopardized so as to bring them within the ambit of the expression ‘person aggrieved’ entitling them to maintain appeal against the decree. [Paras 21-23][1156-D-G; 1157-A-C] Smt. Jatan Kumar Golcha v. Golcha Properties Private Ltd. (1970) 3 SCC 573 : [1971] 3 SCR 247; State of Punjab & Ors. v. Amar Singh & Anr. (1974) 2 SCC 70 : [1974] 3 SCR 152; Baldev Singh v. Surinder Mohan Sharma and Ors. (2003) 1 SCC 34 : [2002] 4 Suppl. SCR 43; A. Subash Babu v. State of A.P. and Anr. (2011) 7 SCC 616 : [2011] 9 SCR 453; Shanti Kumar R. Canji v. Home Insurance Co. of New York (1974) 2 SCC 387 : [1975] 1 SCR 550; State of Rajasthan & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. (1977) 3 SCC 592 : [1978] 1 SCR 1; Srimathi K. Ponnalagu Ammani v. The State of Madras represented by the Secretary to the Revenue Department, Madras and Ors. 66 Law Weekly 136 – relied on. SRI V.N. KRISHNA MURTHY & ANR. v. SRI RAVIKUMAR & ORS. A B C D E F G H 1150 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 7 S.C.R. Case Law Reference [1971] 3 SCR 247 relied on Para 15 [1974] 3 SCR 152 relied on Para 16 [2002] 4 Suppl. SCR 43 relied on Para 17 [2011] 9 SCR 453 relied on Para 18 [1975] 1 SCR 550 relied on Par
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.