SRI V.N. KRISHNA MURTHY & ANR. ETC. ETC. versus SRI RAVIKUMAR & ORS. ETC. ETC.

SRI V.N. KRISHNA MURTHY & ANR. ETC. ETC. versus SRI RAVIKUMAR & ORS. ETC. ETC.

The appellants, being purchasers under sale deeds executed by attorneys on the basis of a General Power of Attorney, failed to show that the trial court decree cancelling agreements to sell and granting injunction prejudicially affected their legal rights; the judgment was not in rem and bound only the plaintiffs and defendants, therefore they were not 'persons aggrieved' entitled to leave to appeal and the High Court correctly refused leave.

Parties
Appellant: SRI V.N. KRISHNA MURTHY & ANR.; Respondent: SRI RAVIKUMAR & ORS.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
21 August 2020
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal to Supreme Court Against High Court Order Declining Leave to Appeal
Outcome
Appeals dismissed
Legal Topics
Person Aggrieved, Judgment in Rem, Leave to Appeal, Limitation, Power of Attorney, Impleadment (order I Rule 10 Cpc)
Civil Procedure Property Law Person Aggrieved Judgment in Rem Leave to Appeal Limitation Power of Attorney Impleadment (order I Rule 10 Cpc)

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

SRI V.N. KRISHNA MURTHY & ANR.

Appellant

SRI RAVIKUMAR & ORS.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal to Supreme Court Against High Court Order Declining Leave to Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether non-parties (appellants) are 'persons aggrieved' entitled to leave to appeal
  2. 2 Whether the trial court's decree declaring agreements to sell time-barred is a judgment in rem binding on purchasers under sale deeds executed by attorneys
  3. 3 Whether appellants demonstrated that their legal rights are prejudicially affected by the decree

Ratio Decidendi

The appellants, being purchasers under sale deeds executed by attorneys on the basis of a General Power of Attorney, failed to show that the trial court decree cancelling agreements to sell and granting injunction prejudicially affected their legal rights; the judgment was not in rem and bound only the plaintiffs and defendants, therefore they were not 'persons aggrieved' entitled to leave to appeal and the High Court correctly refused leave.

Court Disposition

Appeals dismissed

Orders

  • Appeals dismissed
  • Parties to bear their own costs