(The case discusses whether the appellant had the Locus to challenge the decree passed by the Trial Court.)
The plaintiff contends that the registered agreement dated 05.08.1992 should be barred due to the limitation in time, as it went beyond the time the contract should be declared as null and void, which makes it unenforceable and inoperative. The petitioner also contends that the registered agreement in the office of Sub Registrar Yelahanka Bangalore dated 31.10.1989 and an unregistered agreement dated 23.05.1988 both are barred by time. The petitioner claims that the court should grant a permanent injunction restraining the defendants and any agent acting on behalf of them not to interfere with the possession of the said property. He also claimed that the defendants would bear the entire cost of the proceedings. Learned counsel of the Petitioner had stated that there is no locus to challenge the decree passed by the Trial Court and stated that their application has been rightly dismissed.
- The suit property is an ancestral property and the plaintiffs of the case are the co-owners of the land.
- Therefore the defendant had no right to execute the agreement of sale ignoring the interest of the plaintiff.
- Hence the transaction that took place was not valid and became unenforceable.
- The Trial decreed the suit of the Plaintiff and gave decisions favoring the contentions of the petition.
- The Defendants claimed challenging the order given by trial court by filing a Writ petition in the High Court.
- The Honorable High Court stated that the appellant/defendant do have an independent right which they have derived from the sale deed executed by the owner of the land.
- High rejected the appellants leave to appeal.
- As it was executed by the owners of the land, the nature of declaratory relief granted by the Trial Court won’t affect the interest of the Appellant.
- The main question was whether the appellants had the locus to question the judgment passed by the Trial Court and whether the decision by the High Court was justified?
The respondents were aggrieved by the decision of the trial court, so further claimed in High Court by filing a Writ Petition challenging the order passed by Trial Court. The Appellant’s contention is that the judgment given by the Trial Court has affected their interests with the property as they are in possession with the property which is under the dispute.
Honorable Supreme Court after looking upon some of the important precedents held that the “appellant has failed to show that they were affected by the decree and their legal rights stand jeopardized which puts them within the ambit of the expression “person aggrieved” entitling them to maintain appeal against the decree.” Therefore the Court found no wrong in the judgment given by the High Court and thus dismissed the Appeal.
Reported by Karthi Shankar