Merely saying parties interests are adversely affected by judgement is not sufficient, it has to be demonstrated

Isha Sawant | Government Law College | 10th September 2020

Sri V.N. Krishna Murthy v. Sri Ravikumar

Facts:

The appellant- V.N. Krishnamurthy has approached the Supreme Court against the judgement of the Karnataka High Court dated 21-02-2019. The dispute is regarding land measuring 37 guntas,34 guntas and 20 guntas each, situated at Village Jakkur, Bengaluru, North Taluka owned by respondent nos. 5 and 6 who entered into an agreement of sale for the said land in favour of respondent- Karnataka State Khadi and Village Industries Worker’s House Building Co-operative Society Limited. They executed a registered agreement to sale dated 31-10-1989 and 05-05-1992 along with this they also executed a General Power of Attorney in favour of the office bearers of the respondent society which authorizes them to enter into sale transactions of the suit property on the owner’s behalf. The General Power of Attorney was executed giving the Attorney absolute rights to do all such acts necessary for the sale of property. The Attorney in exercise of this power entered into a sale deed relating to the suit property in favour of the appellants on various dates. A suit was filed by the original plaintiff i.e. respondent nos. 5 and 6 against the respondent society that the land in dispute was an ancestral property and the plaintiffs were its co-owners.

They pleaded that the agreement to sale did not transpire into sale transactions and is now barred by limitation period and thus, unenforceable. It is relevant to note here that during this stage of the suit, the sale agreement executed by the Attorney in favour of the appellant was not questioned, it was neither the subject-matter of the original suit, nor any relief in its regard was sought. The Trial Court in its judgement dated 27-07-2016 ordered that the registered agreement to sale dated 30-10-1989 and 05-08-1992 is barred by limitation and so, is not binding on the plaintiff. It also ordered the defendants i.e. the respondent society or anyone acting on their behalf from interfering with the plaintiff- respondent nos. 5 and 6’s enjoyment of the suit property. The appellant had made an application for impleadment under Order 1, Rule 10(2) of Civil Procedure Code during the pendency of the suit proceedings, which was dismissed by the Trial Court. The appellant challenged this order before the Karnataka High Court through a writ petition, it was dismissed as infructuous as in the meantime the suit was decided.

The appellant aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the Trial Court filed an application seeking leave to appeal against it, the High Court dismissed the application observing that the appellant had come into possession of the land by a sale deed executed in their favour by the General Power of Attorney holders on behalf of the land owners, thus, the appellant had an independent right to the property. Therefore, the declaratory relief granted by the Trial Court does no affect the appellant’s interest, it had observed that the appellant being in possession of the land purchased by him, has to file an independent suit to protect the same and cannot seek remedy by filing an appeal challenging the judgement given in the original suit.

Issues:

• Whether the appellant has locus to question the judgement of the Trial Court.
• Whether the High Court was justified in rejecting the appellant’s leave to appeal. 

Legal Provisions:

• Civil Procedure Code, 1908, Section 96 – Appeal from decree

Petitioner’s Contention:

The appellant contended that their interest is directly involved in the subject-matter of the suit. They are the absolute owners of the land in question on the basis of sale deeds. The Trial Court’s judgement holding the agreements to sale to be time-barred and granting a decree of permanent injunction affects their interests as they are in possession of the property. 

Respondent’s Contention:

The respondent stated that the appellant’s claim is regarding the sale of deed executed in their favour by the General Power of Attorney given to the office bearers of the Housing Society by the land owners. The contented that the original suit neither refers to any sale deed nor do the sale deeds refer to any agreement to sale. Thus, the relief claimed by the appellant based on the sale deed executed in his favour is different and so they have no locus to appeal against the decision of the Trial Court in the original plaint. 

Observations of the Court:  

The case was heard before the Supreme Court Bench of L. Nageswara Rao, Krishna Murari and S. Ravindra Bhat, JJ. The court observed that though sections 96 and 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure provide for preferring an appeal from any original decree of from a decree in appeal respectively, it does not specify the categories of persons who can file an appeal. However, it is well-settled legal proposition that a stranger cannot be permitted to file an appeal in suit proceedings unless he satisfies the court that he falls in the category of aggrieved persons. A person not party to the proceedings can only file an appeal when the judgement or decree affects him. The court referred to the case of Baldev Singh v. Surinder Mohan Sharma and Ors (2003) in which the apex court held that appeal under sec-96 of CPC is maintainable only at the instance of an aggrieved person, it defined an aggrieved person as one whose right is affected by reason of the judgement and decree sought to be impugned.

The court also held that an aggrieved person is not a rigid concept but is elastic, it depends on the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature and extent of the complainant’s interest and the prejudice or injuries suffered by him. The court also clarified that an aggrieved person does not refer to a person suffering any psychological or imaginary injury, rather it refers to one whose right and interest have been affected or jeopardized. In the present case the court observed that the appellant is neither an aggrieved person nor is bound by the judgement and decree of the Trial court. The relief claimed in the original suit is cancellation of agreements to sale dated 31-10-1989 and 05-08-1992, which has nothing to do with the sale deed executed between the appellant and the General Power of Attorney.

The court also observed that the appellant despite claiming that his interest has been adversely affected by the Trial Court’s judgement failed to prove the same. The court held that merely saying that appellant has been affected by the decree is not sufficient, they have to demonstrate how the appellant’s legal rights will be affected if the decree is carried out. The court held that the appellant failed to demonstrate how the decree affects his legal rights and so does not fall within the meaning of aggrieved persons, thus they are not entitled to maintain an appeal against the decree.

Judgement:

The court did not find any infirmity in the High Court decision to dismiss the appellant’s application. By a judgement dated 21-08-2020, the appeal was dismissed and the parties were directed to bear their own costs.