Any Person Who Is Not A Party To Suit But Is Affected By Judgment Can Prefer Appeal With Leave Of Court: Telangana HC
The Telangana High Court held that any person who is not a party to the Suit but is affected by a judgment can prefer an appeal with the leave of the Court.
The Court held thus in appeals filed for the specific performance of an Agreement of Sale in respect of a property.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya and Justice Nagesh Bheemapaka observed, “Sections 96-100 of the CPC deal with the procedure for filing appeals from original decrees and do not restrict the categories of persons who can prefer an appeal. In essence, any person who is not a party to the Suit but is affected by a judgment can prefer an appeal with the leave of the Court. "
Advocate Chintalapudi Lakshmi Kumari represented the appellants while Advocate Ashok Reddy Kanathala represented the respondents.
Factual Background -
A suit was filed by the plaintiff (respondent) for specific performance of an Agreement of Sale executed between the plaintiff and defendants in respect of a property. The plaintiff claimed to have paid the total consideration of Rs. 1,46,12,500/- for purchase of the land from the defendants. The defendants filed a common written statement admitting to all the statements made in the plaint with regard to the agreement including payment of consideration. They prayed for dismissal of the suit. The written statement did not disclose a defense on the merits of the suit. The plaintiff filed an application under Order XII Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) – Judgment on Admissions – for a decree on the admissions made by the defendants.
The Trial Court decreed the suit based on the lack of resistance from the defendants or any objection raised by them on the merits of the suit. The Court found that the plaintiff was entitled to specific performance of the agreement and accordingly, directed the defendants to execute the registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiff in respect of the suit property within 3 months. The appellants sought leave to file the appeal against such judgment on the ground that they purchased the same property from the defendants. They claimed that the title in the suit property already stood conveyed to them and the defendants were hence, legally disentitled from conveying the same property to the plaintiff.
The High Court in view of the above facts noted, “The appellants state that they are aggrieved by the impugned judgment since they were prior purchasers/owners of the suit schedule property being sold by the respondent Nos.2-11 to the appellants through their General Power of Attorney Holder. The respondent Nos.2-11 were the defendants in the Suit and allegedly sold the suit schedule land to the appellants as plots in 1983-1986.”
The Court further took note of the fact that the plaintiff objects to the maintainability of the appeal on the ground that the appellants are strangers to the contract between the plaintiff and the defendants.
“Since the appellants claim to be the joint owners of the property which was decreed in favour of the plaintiff/respondent No.1, the appellants would naturally be bound by the impugned decree and would, in the least, be the actually aggrieved persons”, it said.
The question before the Court was simply whether the appellants, who were not parties to the Suit in the Trial Court, have a right to file the appeals.
“The appellants’ title to the joint ownership of the suit schedule properties is not being decided at this stage. The only point for consideration is whether the appellants in A.S.No.320 of 2023 have a right to file the appeals”, it added.
The Court also said that the sellers/defendants have played truant and the cases presented by the appellants in all the appeals unerringly point to the appellants being seriously aggrieved by the impugned judgment and therefore, the appellants are persons aggrieved by the impugned judgment.
Accordingly, the High Court allowed the appeals, granted the appellants leave to appeal from the impugned judgment, and listed the appeals for hearing on June 24, 2024.
Cause Title- B.R. Subhash Babu v. Y Jaihind Reddy