2020 (8) TMI 950

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ive 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 f....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....iff's peacefully possession and enjoyment of the suit Schedule property. It is further ordered and decreed that the parties are directed to bear their own costs. 7. During the pendency of the suit proceedings, the Appellants made an application Under Order 1 Rule 10(2) Code of Civil Procedure for impleadment which was dismissed by the Trial Court. The order was challenged by filing a Writ Petition before the High Court which came to be dismissed as infructuous as the suit itself came to be decided, in the meantime. 8. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the Trial Court, the Appellants preferred R.F.A. Nos. 1434 of 2017, 1435 of 2017, 1436 of 2017 and 1775 of 2017. The appeals were duly accompanied by an application seeking leave to appeal against the judgment and decree. 9. High Court vide a common judgment and order impugned in these appeals while declining to grant leave to file an appeal rejected the application. 10. The High Court while dismissing the application made by the Appellants seeking leave to appeal has observed that: It is true that the Trial Court has granted a very peculiar declaratory relief which in my opinion the Plaintiffs in the suit could have....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d the rival submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties. 14. In the backdrop of above facts, 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. 15. Section 96 and 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure provide for preferring an appeal from any original decree or from decree in appeal respectively. The aforesaid provisions do not enumerate the categories of persons who can file an appeal. However, it is a settled legal proposition that 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. Reference be made to the observation of this Court in Smt. Jatan Kumar Golcha v. Golcha Properties Private Ltd. (1970) 3 SCC 573: It is well settled that a person who is not a party to the suit may prefer an appeal with the leave of the Appella....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... person not a party to a proceeding against the decree or judgment passed in such proceedings in following words: Now, what is the test to find out when it would be proper to grant leave to appeal to a person not a party to a proceeding against the decree or judgment in such proceedings? We think it would be improper to grant leave to appeal to every person who may in some remote or indirect way be prejudicially affected by a decree or judgment. We think that ordinarily leave to appeal should be granted to persons who, though not parties to the proceedings, would be bound by the decree or judgment in that proceeding and who would be precluded from attacking its correctness in other proceedings. 21. Applying the above tests, we are of the considered opinion that 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. On the other hand, 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....