SRI V.N. KRISHNA MURTHY & ANR. ETC. ETC. versus SRI RAVIKUMAR & ORS. ETC. ETC.
[2020] 7 S.C.R. 1148, Supreme Court of India, 2020
Outcome: Dismissed (Dismissed)
Segment: Ratio
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
Para 19
[1978] 1 SCR 1
relied on
Para 19
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 2701-
2704 of 2020.
From the Judgment and Order dated 21.02.2019 of the High Court
of Karnataka, Principal Bench at Bengaluru in R.F.A. Nos. 1434, 1435,
1436 and 1775 of 2017.
Siddharth Bhatnagar, Sharanagouda Patil, Ms. Supreeta
Sharanagouda, M/S. S-legal Associates, Advs. for the Appellants.
Gurukrishna Kumar Nikhil Nayyar, Sr. Advs., Akshay Amritanshu,
Shankar Divate, Divyanshu Rai, T. V. S. Raghavendra Sreyas, Ankit
Kumar Lal, Ms. Priyanka Das, Sumit Upadhyay, Ms. Megha Karnwal,
Advs. for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
KRISHNA MURARI, J.
1. The instant appeals have been filed against the common
judgment dated 21.02.2019 passed by the High Court of Karnataka,
Principal Bench at Bengaluru in R.F.A. Nos. 1434 of 2017, 1435 of
2017, 1436 of 2017 and 1775 of 2017 declining to grant leave to file an
appeal.
2. Necessary facts in brief for the adjudication of controversy
can be summarized as under :-
Disputes relates to land comprised in Survey No. 105/3 measuring
37 guntas, Survey No. 105/9 measuring 34 guntas and Survey No. 105/
4B measuring 20 guntas, situate at Village Jakkur, Bengaluru, North
Taluk. Respondent
Nos. 5 and 6 herein who were recorded owner of
the land in dispute executed a registered agreement of sale of the land in
dispute in favour of Respondent, Karnataka State Khadi and Village
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1151
Industries Worker’s House Building Co-operative 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 favour of defendant society which is
registered as document bearing no. 1194/92-93, in
book no.I, stored in vol no. 27 at pages 86-88 in the
office of the Sub Registrar Yelahanka Bangalore as well
as unregistered agreement to sell
dated 23.05.1988 as
barred by time, alternatively in case of default by the
3rd defendant, this Hon’ble Court be pleased to execute
cancellation agreement to sell through court
commissioner.
c)
The 3rd defendant be directed to execute a registered
cancellation deed before the jurisdictional Sub
Registrar.
d)
To award and issue a judgment and decree of permanent
injunction restraining the Defendant/s, their agents or
SRI V.N. KRISHNA MURTHY & ANR. v. SRI RAVIKUMAR &
ORS.  [KRISHNA MURARI, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1152
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 7 S.C.R.
anybody acting on their behalf from interfering with
the possession suit schedule property.
e)
Injunction restraining the defendants their agents,
servants, officials, assigns or anyone acting or claiming
on their behalf from demolishing or in any way entering
upon or in any way interfering property.
f)
The defendants be directed to pay the cost of the
proceedings.
g)
And further the Hon’ble Court be pleased to award pass
such other just and equitable relief/s as this Hon’ble
Court deems fit in the circumstances of the suit and
award costs in the interest of justice and equity.
5. Suits were filed on the allegations that suit property is ancestral
property and the plaintiffs were co-owner and thus defendant had no
right to execute the agreement of sale ignoring the interest of the plaintiff.
It was also pleaded that since the agreement of sale did not culminate
into a sale transaction, the same are barred by law of limitation and are
thus unenforceable. It may be relevant to mention at this stage that the
sale deeds executed in favour of appellants by the attorneys of the
recorded land holder were not questioned in the suit and were neither
subject matter of dispute therein nor any relief was claimed in their
respect.
6. The Trial Court vide its judgment dated 27.07.2016, decreed
the suit by passing the following decree:-
“It is ordered and decreed that the suit of the plaintiffs
is decreed.
It is further ordered and
decreed that the registered
agreement of sale dated 30.10.1989 and 05.08.1992 is barred
by limitation and not binding on the plaintiffs.
It is further ordered and decreed that the defendant-
society or anybody on their behalf permanently restrained
from interfering with the plaintiff’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.”
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1153
7. During the pendency of the suit proceedings, the appellants
made an application under Order 1 Rule 10 (2) CPC 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 set up by way of defence, had they been sued
by the Housing Society for specific performance. Be that as
it may, all the applicants/appellants claim to be in possession
of their respective sites on the strength of the sale deeds
executed by the General Power of Attorney holders of the
owners of the lands. What is stated is that the agreements of
sale were executed in favour of the Housing Society and that
Power of Attorney was executed in favour of some persons
who are office bearers of the Housing Society.  If this is the
position, I think that the applicants/appellants do have an
independent right which they appear to have derived on the
basis of the sale deeds executed by the owners of the land. It
may be a fact that the sale deeds were executed by the Power
of Attorney holders of the owner, but in reality those sale
deeds were executed by the owners of the land and, therefore,
it can be said that the nature of declaratory relief granted by
the Trial Court in the suit does not affect the interest of the
applicants/appellants.”
The Trial Court further went on to observe that; “if they are in
possession of the sites purchased by them, they have to protect their
possession by filing independent suits. I do not think they have a
remedy by filing an appeal challenging the judgment in the suit”.
SRI V.N. KRISHNA MURTHY & ANR. v. SRI RAVIKUMAR &
ORS.  [KRISHNA MURARI, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1154
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 7 S.C.R.
11. Learned Counsel for the appellants argues before us that the
interest of the appellants is directly involved in the subject matter of the
suit. They have become absolute owners of the sites in question on the
basis of sale deeds. The judgment of the Trial Court holding the sale
agreements time barred and granting a decree of permanent injunction
actually affects their interests as they are in possession of the suit
property.
12. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents
vehemently contended that the claim of the appellants herein is based on
the sale deeds executed on the strength of the General Power of Attorney
executed by the recorded owners of the suit property. There is neither
any reference of the sale deeds in the suit nor the sale deeds refer to
any agreement to sell. Therefore, the relief claimed, if any, by the
appellants based on sale deeds in their favour is entirely different, and
there is no locus to challenge the decree passed by the Trial Court and
their application for leave to appeal has rightly been dismissed.
13. We have considered 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 Vs. Golcha Properties
Private Ltd.1:-
“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
1 (1970) 3 SCC 573
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1155
and such leave should be granted if he would be prejudicially
affected by the Judgment.”
16. This Court in State of Punjab & Ors. Vs. Amar Singh &
Anr.2 while dealing with the maintainability of appeal by a person who is
not party to a suit has observed thus :-
“Firstly, there is a catena of authorities which, following the
dictum of Lindley, L.J., in re Securities Insurance Co., [(1894)
2 Ch 410] have laid down the rule that a person who is not a
party to a  decree or order  may with  the leave of  the  Court,
prefer an appeal from such decree or order if he is either
bound by the order or is aggrieved by it or is prejudicially
affected by it.”
17. In Baldev Singh Vs. Surinder Mohan Sharma and Ors3.,
this Court held that an appeal under Section 96 of the Civil Procedure
Code, would be maintainable only at the instance of a person aggrieved
by and dissatisfied with the judgment and decree. While dealing with the
concept of person aggrieved, it was observed in paragraph 15 as under:-
“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.”
18. In A. Subash Babu Vs. State of A.P. and Anr.4, this Court
held as under:-
“The expression ‘aggrieved person’ denotes an elastic and
an elusive concept. It cannot be confined that the bounds of
a rigid, exact and comprehensive definition. Its scope and
meaning depends on diverse, variable factors such as the
content and intent of the
statute of which contravention is
alleged, the specific circumstances of the case, the nature
and extent of the complainant’s interest and the nature and
extent of the prejudice or injuries suffered by him.”
19. The expression ‘person aggrieved’ does not include a
person who suffers from a psychological or an imaginary injury; a
person aggrieved must, therefore, necessarily be one, whose right
2 (1974) 2 SCC 70
3 (2003) 1 SCC 34
4 (2011) 7 SCC 616
SRI V.N. KRISHNA MURTHY & ANR. v. SRI RAVIKUMAR &
ORS.  [KRISHNA MURARI, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1156
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 7 S.C.R.
or interest has been adversely affected or jeopardized (vide Shanti
Kumar R. Canji Vs. Home Insurance Co. of New York5 and State of
Rajasthan & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors.6).
20. In Srimathi K. Ponnalagu Ammani Vs. The State Of
Madras represented by the Secretary to the Revenue Department,
Madras and Ors.7, this Court laid down 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 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 judgment and decree of the Trial Court is in no sense a judgment
in rem and it is binding only as between the plaintiffs and defendants of
the suit, and not upon the appellants.
22. Though it has been vehemently contended before us and also
pleaded before the High Court that the judgment and decree of the Trial
Court affects the appellants adversely. The appellants have failed to
place any material or demonstrate as to how the judgment and decree
passed by the Trial Court adversely or prejudicially affects them. Mere
saying that the appellants are prejudicially affected by the decree is not
5 (1974) 2 SCC 387
6 (1977) 3 SCC 592
7 66 Law Weekly 136
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1157
sufficient. It has to be demonstrated that the decree affects the legal
rights of the appellants and would have adverse effect when carried
out. Facts of the case clearly demonstrate that suit which has been
decreed 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. There is not even a whisper in the
entire plaint or in suit proceedings about the sale deed executed in favour
of the appellants by the General Power of Attorney holders or even for
that matter in the judgment and decree of the Trial Court.
23. The appellants have thus 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.
24. In view of the facts and discussions, we find no infirmity in
the judgment of the High Court dismissing the application filed by the
appellants seeking leave to appeal against the decree. The appeals,
accordingly, stand dismissed. However, we leave the parties to bear
their own costs.
Divya Pandey
Appeals dismissed.
SRI V.N. KRISHNA MURTHY & ANR. v. SRI RAVIKUMAR &
ORS.  [KRISHNA MURARI, J.]