Karnataka High Court
Mohd Muneer vs Mohammed Salar Abbas on 4 February, 2013
Author: Aravind Kumar
Bench: Aravind Kumar
1
R
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 04TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2013
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.1753/2009
BETWEEN:
Mohd.Munner,
S/o late Abdul Sattar,
Aged about 58 years,
Agriculturist,
R/o Sominakoppa village,
Kasaba Hobli,
Shimoga Taluk - 577 201. ...Appellant
(By Sri.B.Rudragouda, Advocate)
AND:
1. Mohammed Salar Abbas,
S/o late Nyamthi,
Mohammed Imam,
Major, Merchant,
R/o Ravivarma Street,
Shimoga - 577 201.
2. Mohammad Shafi Ahmed,
S/o late Nyamthi,
Mohammed Imam Sab,
Major, R/o K.R.Puram Road,
Shimoga - 577 201.
3. Banu Bi,
W/o late Nyamthi,
Mohammed Imam Sab,
Major, R/o K.R.Puram Road,
Shimoga - 577 201.
2
4. Katoom Bi,
Dead by her LR's
(a) Rehna Begum,
W/o Mirza Abdul Azeez,
R/o R.T.Bank Colony,
Kadur.
(b) Jabeena Beguam
W/o Farooz Ahamed,
Rice Merchant,
Sobedar Beedi,
Shakiripura,
Shimoga District.
(c) Mubeena Begum,
W/o M.D. Salem,
R/o Opp.Mahaboob Beig,
4th Cross, Left Side,
Tippu Nagar,
Shimoga City- 577 201
(d) Iliyas,
Shimoga Transport,
B.H.Road, Bhadravathi.
(e) Kasim Sab,
R/o Yellamma Keri,
Lashkar Mohalla,
Opp. Temple,
Shimoga.
(f) Ishaq,
Shimoga Transport,
Double Road,
(g) Imthiyaj,
R/o Yellamma Keri,
Lashkar Mohalla,
Opp. Temple,
Shimoga.
3
(h) Ashiq,
Shimoga Transport
Double Road,
Shimoga.
5. Nagina Bi,
W/o Hussain Sab,
Major, Sagar Footwear,
Sagar- 577 401.
6. Shakeela Bi,
W/o Shamiulla, Major,
Rice Merchant,
R/o Hosamane Main Road,
Bhadravathi-577 301.
7. Razia Bi,
W/o Mohammed Ibrahim Sab,
Major, Ginger Merchant,
R/o Milaghatta Main Road,
Shimoga - 577 201.
8. Mohammed Ismail,
S/o late Nyamthi,
Mohammed Imam Sab,
Major, Ginger Merchant,
Near Megban Hotel,
Bye-pass Road (B.H.Road),
Shimoga - 577 201. ..Respondents
(By Sri.Pruthvi Wodeyar, Advocate for
M/s Jayakumar S.Patil Associates for R-1, R-2, R-5, R-7,
R-4 (a-d) & R-4 (f & g)
R-4(b) and R-6 served)
This Appeal is filed Under Section 100 of C.P.C.
praying against the judgment & decree dated 31.10.2009
passed in R.A.No.02/2005 on the file of the Addl. District
Judge, Shimoga, allowing the appeal and sitting aside the
judgment and decree dated 24.07.2000 passed in
O.S.No.219/94 on the file of the Prl. Civil Judge, (Jr.Dn),
Shimoga.
4
This Appeal coming for further hearing this day, the
Court delivered the following:
JUDGMENT
Facts leading to filing of this appeal is a glaring example of how litigants can be successful in taking undue advantage of beneficial procedural laws. The reasons that follow in this judgment would act as mirror to unravel this factual matrix.
2. This appeal is directed against judgment and decree passed by the Prl.District Judge, Shimoga in R.A.No.2/2005 dated 31.10.2009 whereunder appeal has been allowed and partial judgment and decree dated 29.09.1995 passed in O.S.No.219/1994 by the Prl.Munsiff, Shimoga decreeing the suit for specific performance against defendants 1, 2, 3, 5 & 6 has been set aside and suit itself has been dismissed. 5
3. This Court, by order dated 19.01.2010 has admitted the appeal for adjudication of the following substantial questions of law:
(1) "Whether the first respondent was competent to challenge the partial decree granted in favour of the appellant, when the said partial decree did not apply to the first respondent? and (2) Whether the first respondent not having contested the suit was in a position to challenge the final decree as well?"
4. In order to answer the above substantial questions of law, it would be necessary to state the history leading to filing of this appeal.
5. Parties are referred to as per their rank in the trial Court.
BRIEF BACKGROUND
6. Plaintiff filed a suit for grant of decree of specific performance of agreement of sale dated 13.03.1981 contending interalia that one Sri Nyamti Mohammed Imam Saheb had agreed to sell suit 6 schedule property in his favour for a total consideration of ` 13,975/- and registration expenses to be shared equally. The gist of the averments made in the plaint are as under:
(i) Suit schedule property exclusively belonged to Sri Nyamti Mohammed Imam Saheb and he entered into an agreement of sale with plaintiff at Shimoga on 13.03.1981 agreeing to convey the same for sale consideration fixed at ` 2,150/- per acre and registration expenses will have to be equally shared. It was agreed to between the parties that sale deed has to be executed after litigation in respect of the suit schedule property was concluded; no specific time was fixed for performance of the contract; vendor had received a sum of ` 7,000/- on the date of agreement;
possession was delivered to the plaintiff; a sum of ` 5,800/- was paid to the defendant on 25.06.1987 which is duly endorsed in the agreement of sale in the presence of witnesses; thus, plaintiff , in all, had made payment of ` 12,801/- as against total consideration of 7 ` 13,975/-; plaintiff has been always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract; litigation before Land Tribunal concluded in the later part of 1987; aggrieved party namely Sri Amanulla khan had informed the defendant that he would pursue the matter before High Court against decision of the Land Tribunal and as such, both plaintiff and his vendor considered it would be prudent to wait for another six months to finalise the sale agreement; and after six months, plaintiff made enquiries and came to know that no appeal or revision has been filed and by that time, the vendor Sri Nyamti Mohammed Imam Saheb i.e., father of defendants had fallen sick and was bed ridden; though he assured the plaintiff that sale transaction would be completed after he recovered, sale was not completed on account of his ill health and in the said situation, plaintiff did not pursue the matter and said Sri Nyamti Mohammed Imam Saheb expired in the year 1988.
8
(ii) On account of defendants-1,2,3,5 & 6 having agreed to execute the sale deed, matter was not pursued; thereafter one of the sons of Sri. Nyamti Mohammed Imam Saheb filed a suit in O.S.No.128/1988 and same came to be decreed on 16.02.1994; application filed by plaintiff for getting himself impleaded was rejected and subsequent to dismissal of the suit, suit in question namely, O.S.No.219/1994 was filed on 20.04.1994 seeking relief of specific performance of agreement of sale dated 13.03.1981.
(iii) It is intriguing to note at this juncture that along with the plaint, an application under Section 5 read with Section 14 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1963 was also filed by plaintiff which was numbered as I.A.No.I seeking condonation of delay in filing the suit contending interalia that there is no delay in filing suit and if at all if there is any delay, same be condoned. 9
7. On service of suit summons, 8th defendant appeared through learned Advocate Sri Mohammad Ayub. Defendants-1, 2, 3 & 5 were set exparte by the trial Court by order dated 14.06.1994. To enable the plaintiff to take further steps for service of suit summons on defendants-4, 6 & 7, matter came to be adjourned from time to time and on 26.08.1995, matter came to be adjourned to 21.10.1995. However, an application - I.A.II was filed by plaintiff to prepone the matter from 21.10.1995 to 29.09.1995. The said application - I.A.II filed by plaintiff was allowed on 29.09.1995 and on the very same day, application - I.A.IV under Order 9 Rule 7 CPC was filed by learned counsel appearing for defendants-1,2,3,5 & 6 along with written statement whereunder suit transaction entered into by their father was admitted and it was contended that suit schedule property had been agreed to be conveyed to the plaintiff. Records would also indicate that defendants-1,2,3,5 & 6 have filed one more written statement dated 22.07.1994 before trial Court virtually 10 on the same lines as that of written statement filed on 29.09.1995 agreeing to execute the sale deed in favour of plaintiff and seeking permission of trial Court to execute a sale deed in favour of plaintiff.
8. It is not in dispute that admittedly 8th defendant was not notified of said advancement of the case from 21.10.1995 to 29.09.1995 till 29.09.1995 nor copy of I.A.II was served on learned counsel appearing on behalf of 8th defendant. Plaintiff filed one more application I.A.III praying for a direction to defendants - 1,2,3,5 & 6 to execute sale-deed in his favour since they had consented for executing sale deed. Trial Court, by order dated 29.09.1995 accepted the written statement filed by defendants-1,2,3,5 & 6 by allowing I.A.III and I.A.IV and by setting aside them exparte and also ordered for partial decree being drawn namely, suit against defendants-1,2,3,5 & 6 came to be decreed as prayed for by the plaintiff. Thereafter matter has been called on 21.10.1995. 8th defendant who was duly represented by 11 their counsel had not taken any steps to file written statement. Defendant-4 was placed exparte on 27.02.1996. Matter was being adjourned from time to time for filing written statement of defendants-7 and 8.
9. In the meanwhile, 8th defendant filed an appeal in R.A.No.146/1995 (later renumbered as R.A.219/2005) before the Addl.Civil Judge, Shimoga with a prayer to set aside the partial decree dated 29.09.1995 passed by trial Court and sought for remand of suit O.S.No.219/1994 with a prayer to grant him and other defendants i.e., defendants-4 & 7 an opportunity to contest the suit on merits. It was contended in the said appeal that partial decree could not have been passed against defendants-1, 2, 3, 5 & 6 by trial Court since 8th defendant had not filed written statement; no opportunity is afforded to 8th defendant to oppose it; partial decree is a collusive decree between plaintiff and defendants-1,2,3,5 and 6; defendants-4 and 7 were yet to be served in the suit; and suit itself 12 was barred by limitation. Plaintiff appeared in the said appeal and contested the matter. Along with the appeal, an application under Order 41 Rule 5 CPC seeking stay of the execution proceedings in Execution No.209/2005 (old No.146/1995) was also filed by 8th defendant - appellant contending interalia that in pursuance of partial decree passed on 29.09.1995 in O.S.No.219/1994, defendant Nos.1, 2, 3, 5 and 6 are likely to execute the sale deed in favour of plaintiff. The order sheet of the lower appellate Court in R.A.No.2/2005 would indicate that at the time of issuing notice, it has considered said application and has passed the following order:
"In view of this pending disposal of I.A.No.I, operation of the partial judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.219/1994 dated 29.09.1995 by the Prl.Munsiff, Shimoga is stayed and that further execution proceedings be stayed in Execution No.209/1995 on the file of Prl.Munsiff Court, Shimoga.
Communicate this to the trial Court immediately.
Issue E/N on I.A.I and also on appeal to respondents.13
----------- 14.12.1995.
Sd/-
11.11.1995"
10. Plaintiff had also appeared in R.A.No.2/2005 (old No.146/1995) on 19.12.1995 through his learned Counsel Shri H.Subbarao. Thus, it can be easily inferred from records that plaintiff was also aware as on 19.12.1995 of order of stay of partial judgment and decree passed by trial Court on 29.9.1995 having been passed by the lower Appellate Court staying the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.219/1994 dated 29.09.1995. Perusal of the records of the trial Court would also indicate that neither the plaintiff nor the eighth defendant brought to the notice of the trial Court about the order of stay having been passed in R.A.No.2/2005 (old No.146/1995) while it was adjudicating the appeal.
14
11. During the pendency of the appeal, matter before trial Court came to be adjourned from time to time. In the meanwhile, the trial Court proceeded to record the evidence of the plaintiff as P.W.1 on 28.06.2000. Deposition of P.W.1 of even date would indicate that eighth defendant has not been afforded opportunity to cross-examine P.W.1 on the ground that he has not filed the written statement and he had been placed ex-parte. At this juncture, it would also be appropriate to note that Defendant No.8 was not placed ex-parte but he had not filed the written statement. Non-filing of the written statement would not deprive the defendant in a suit to cross-examine the witness. This is the first stage at which the trial Court erred. Thereafter, the trial Court has considered the pleadings namely the averments made in the plaint, written statement filed by defendants 1, 2, 3, 6 and 5 and evaluated the evidence of P.W.1 and decreed the suit on 24.07.2000 by directing all the defendants to execute the sale deed in respect of the suit schedule property by 15 receiving the balance sale consideration amount of Rs.1,174/- from plaintiff and directed the costs of the registration has to be borne by the plaintiff. The partial decree that was passed on 29.09.1995 against defendants 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6 was made absolute. At the time of passing of the said judgment and decree on 24.07.2000, admittedly, appeal filed by eighth defendant before the lower Appellate Court in R.A.No.146/1995 (old), 2/2005 (new) was still pending adjudication. Records of lower appellate Court do not indicate that order passed in R.A.No.2/2005 on 11.11.1995 had been intimated to the trial Court which was adjudicating O.S.No.219/1994. In fact, the parties to the lis who were fully aware of the proceedings in R.A.No.2/2005 pending before appellate Court could have brought to the notice of the trial Court in O.S.No.219/1994. For the reasons best known, none of the parties brought to the notice of trial Court about either the order passed by the lower Appellate Court staying the partial judgment and decree or about pendency of 16 R.A.No.2/2005 which could have avoided further decree being passed since the partial decree passed on 11.11.1995 was already under scrutiny by the lower Appellate Court and same had been stayed by the appellate Court.
12. It is because of these reasons, in the opening paragraph of the present judgment; I have opined that the parties to the lis have been successful in taking undue advantage of procedural Law to make a mockery of it.
13. Be that as it may. Eighth defendant admittedly had filed appeal in R.A.No.146/1995 (old) 2/2005 (new) challenging the partial judgment and decree passed on 29.09.1995 against defendants 1, 2, 3, 5, and 6 and lower Appellate Court considered the grounds urged in the appeal memorandum and decreed the appeal by setting aside the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.219/1994 dated 29.09.1995 on 31.10.2009 and it also dismissed the suit filed by the 17 plaintiff on the ground of same having been barred by limitation.
RE: SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW NOS.1 & 2:-
14. 8th defendant in the suit who is the appellant before this Court was aggrieved by the partial judgment and decree passed by the trial Court on 29.09.1995, and as such he challenged the same before lower appellate Court in R.A.No.2/2005. This appeal was presented on 01.12.1995 which was initially numbered as R.A.No.146/1995. At the time of issuing notice on the appeal and considering the prayer sought for in I.A.I, lower appellate Court granted an exparte interim order of stay of partial judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.219/1994 against defendants-1,2,3,5 & 6.
15. As observed by me hereinabove, learned Advocates appearing for the parties should have brought to the notice of the Court of Prl.Civil Judge (Jr.Dn), Shimoga which was adjudicating O.S.No.219/1994 during pendency of the appeal 18 R.A.No.2/2005 (old No.146/1995) before the Prl.District Judge, Shimoga or trial Court itself could have noticed the fact that appellate Court had stayed partial judgment and decree passed on 29.09.2005 and further proceedings in execution No.209/1995 since the said execution petition was also pending before the same Court, by taking judicial note of same and to avoid any conflicting decrees being passed or in other words, two decrees being passed.
16. It is in this background, this Court has made an observation herein above that parties to the lis have taken undue advantage of beneficial procedural laws. If this aspect namely, pendency of appeal R.A.No.2/2005 (old No.146/1995) or order staying partial judgment and decree dated 29.09.1995 had been brought to the notice of the trial Court by either of the parties, trial Court would not have naturally proceeded with the suit and it would have awaited the decision of the appellate Court since any finding that would have 19 been given in R.A.No.2/2005 (old No.146/1995) would have had a direct bearing and impact on the ultimate decree that would have been passed in O.S.No.219/1994.
17. Be that as it may. Trial Court proceeded to adjudicate the suit in O.S.No.219/1994 against remaining defendants-4,7 & 8 and by its judgment and decree dated 24.07.2000 had decreed the suit against them also and the partial decree passed on 29.09.1995 against defendants 1, 2, 3, 5 & 6 was made absolute.
Being aggrieved by this judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.219/1994 on 24.07.2000, 8th defendant who is the first respondent herein filed Misc.petition in Misc.No.375/2000 under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC which came to be dismissed. 8th defendant obviously did not pursue his grievance to its logical end obviously for the reason that he had already filed an appeal in R.A.No.2/2005 (old No.146/1995) challenging partial decree. In this background or on account of 20 subsequent decree having been passed by trial Court on 24.07.2000 lower appellate Court could have rejected the appeal in R.A.No.2/2005 (old No.146/1995) by reserving liberty to 8th defendant to challenge the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.219/1994 on 24.07.2000 in its entirety inasmuch as, partial judgment and decree passed on 29.09.1995 had got merged into judgment and decree passed on 24.07.2000. However, for the reasons best known, it did not carry out such an exercise. But on the other hand, lower appellate Court as could be seen from the judgment, has proceeded to examine the appeal on merits as though it is examining an appeal filed against judgment and decree passed on 24.07.2000 which was highly impermissible since there was no challenge to it before said Court. As could be seen from lower appellate Court judgment, it has proceeded to examine both the partial judgment and decree passed on 29.09.1995 as well as subsequent judgment and decree passed on 24.07.2000 and dismissed the suit in its entirety on the 21 ground suit was barred by limitation. Admittedly, judgment and decree passed on 24.07.2000 was not under challenge in R.A.No.2/2005 (old No.146/1995). 8th defendant neither amended the appeal memorandum nor sought leave of the lower appellate Court to challenge said judgment and decree dated 24.07.2000 in pending R.A.No.2/2005. As could be seen from lower appellate Court records, what was challenged before lower appellate Court was only partial judgment and decree passed on 29.09.1995 in O.S.No.219/1994. This decree alone was under
challenge.
18. The grounds that came to be urged in appeal R.A.No.2/2005 (old No.146/1995) was regarding maintainability of the suit itself and it is this ground on which lower appellate Court proceeded to adjudicate the same. At this juncture, it would be appropriate to note the substantive law which governs filing of the appeal and procedural law which requires to be adopted by 22 lower appellate Court for adjudicating an appeal namely, Section 96 CPC as well as Order 41 of CPC.
Hence, these two provisions are extracted below:
PART VII - Appeals "96. Appeal from original decree.- (1) Save where otherwise expressly provided in the body of this Code or by any other law for the time being in force, an appeal shall lie from every decree passed by any Court exercising original jurisdiction to the Court authorized to hear appeals from the decisions of such Court.
(2) An appeal may lie from an original decree passed ex parte.
(3) No appeal shall lie from a decree passed by the Court with the consent of parties. [(4) No appeal shall lie, except on a question of law, from a decree in any suit of the nature cognizable by Courts of Small Causes, when the amount or value of the subject-matter of the original suit does not exceed] ORDER XLI APPEALS FROM ORIGINAL DECREES
1. Form of appeal- What to accompany memorandum- (1) Every appeal shall be preferred in the form of a memorandum signed by the appellant or his pleader and presented to the Court or to such officer as it 23 appoints in this behalf. The memorandum shall be accompanied by a copy of the [judgment]:
[Provided that where two or more suits have been tried together and a common judgment has been delivered therefor and two or more appeals are filed against any decree covered by that judgment, whether by the same appellant or by different appellants, the Appellate Court may dispense with the filing of more than one copy of the judgment.] (2) Contents of memorandum- The memorandum shall set forth, concisely and under distinct heads, the grounds of objection to the decree appealed from without any argument or narrative; and such grounds shall be numbered consecutively.
[(3) Where the appeal is against a decree for payment of money, the appellant shall, within such time as the Appellate Court may allow, deposit, the amount disputed in the appeal or furnish such security in respect thereof as the Court may think fit.]
2. Grounds which may be taken in appeal.- The appellant shall not, except by leave of the Court, urge or be heard in support of any ground of objection not set forth in the memorandum of appeal, but the Appellate Court, in deciding the appeal, shall not be confined to the grounds of objections set forth in the memorandum of appeal or taken by leave of the Court under this rule:
Provided that the Court shall not rest its decision on any other ground unless the 24 party who may be affected thereby has had a sufficient opportunity of contesting the case on that ground.
19. An appeal would lie under Section 96 of CPC from every decree passed by any Court exercising original jurisdiction to the Court authorized to hear appeal from such decision and it can be exparte decree also. However, if the decree has been drawn by consent of parties, such appeal would not be maintainable and the other bar for entertaining the appeal by the appellate Court would be when the amount or value of the subject matter of the original suit does not exceed `.10,000/-, unless it involves a question of law.
Procedural law namely, Order 41 Rule (1) CPC prescribes the form of an appeal, what should be the contents of a memorandum of appeal namely it should set forth concisely under distinct heads the grounds of objection to the decree appealed from. Rule (2) of Order 41 CPC empowers the lower appellate Court to examine the appeal not merely restricting it to grounds urged in 25 the Appeal Memorandum and appellant is also not precluded from raising any other ground though not set forth in the memorandum of appeal and this exercise cannot be undertaken by Appellate Court unless other party who is likely to be affected by such decree is heard.
20. In the instant case, appeal in R.A.No.2/2005 (old No.146/1995) was filed by 8th defendant challenging or questioning the correctness of judgment and decree passed against defendants-1,2,3,5 & 6 namely partial judgment and decree passed on 20.09.1995 which admittedly was not against 8th defendant. The question would be as to when there being no decree passed against 8th defendant or when no decree is operating against 8th defendant can he assail the said judgment and decree?
21. There cannot be any dispute with regard to the proposition that even if a person who is not a party to the proceedings would be entitled to challenge the 26 same before the appellate Court with the leave of said Court when it affects him prejudicially or if he has an appealable interest. As to what would constitute an appealable interest was the subject matter of consideration before Division Bench of Allahabad High Court in the case of STATE OF U.P Vs. SMT. RAM SRI AND OTHERS (AIR 1976 ALLAHABAD 121) whereunder it has been held as under:
"8. Section 96 of the Civil P.C. deals with appeal from original decrees. It does not enumerate the persons who can file an appeal under the aforesaid section. It only lays down that an appeal shall lie from every decree passed by any court exercising original jurisdiction to the Court authorized to hear the appeals. It is, however, fundamental that in order to be entitled to file an appeal, the person must be aggrieved against the judgment against which he is filing the appeal. In other words, the right to file an appeal against a judgment or decree exists only in the person who is aggrieved or prejudiced thereby. A party, therefore, who would benefit from the change in the judgment has an appealable interest. This interest, of course, should not be contingent speculative or futuritive. It must be 27 substantial, immediate and pecuniary. Such an interest must have invaded legal rights of the person filing an appeal. It is, therefore, clear that an aggrieve party is one who is injuriously affected by the judgment or whose rights are directly affected by the operation of the same. The question relating to the controversy as to when a person can be said to be aggrieved has been a subject matter of decision in various cases. The well known judgment which laid down the definition of the phrase "Aggrieved person" is by James, L.J. in Re Sidebotham: Ex.p. Sidebotham (1880) 14 Ch. D.458. it was observed that the words 'person aggrieved' in Section 71 of the Bankruptcy Act of 1869 meant:
"not really a person who is disappointed of a benefit which he might have received if some order had been made. A 'person aggrieved' must be a man who had suffered a legal grievance, a man against whom a decision has been pronounced which had wrongfully deprived him of something, or wrongfully refused him something or wrongfully affected his title of something."
"10. From these citations, it is clear that the mere fact that a judgment is wrong, does not entitle a person to file an appeal against the same. It is necessary that such a person must be deprived of the results of the litigation which he was expecting in his favour in case the judgment went against him.28
This will give rise to a grievance which may be taken up in appeal by such a person. Dealing with this in Re Riviere's Trade Mark (1884) 26 Ch.D.48 Lord Selborne observed:
"........it must be a legal grievance, it must not be a stet pro ratione voluntas; the applicant must not come merely saying 'I do not like this thing to be done' it must be shown that it tends to his injury, or to his damage, in the legal sense of the word."
22. Exceptions carved out to entertain such appeal is that it should not be contingent, speculative or futuritive. Section 96 of CPC when read in its entirety would clearly indicate that it does not restrict or prescribe that parties to the suit alone can file an appeal or a person against whom no decree is passed is otherwise not entitled to challenge a judgment and decree passed by trial Court. On the other hand, a party to the suit against whom no decree is passed, if he is able to demonstrate before lower appellate Court that decree which has been passed against some of the parties i.e., partial decree would also prejudicially affect 29 his right, then, such appeal would definitely be maintainable before the lower appellate Court. As to whether a person against whom decree is not passed would be entitled to file an appeal (simplicitor) was the subject matter of consideration by the Apex Court in the case of BANARSI AND OTHERS Vs. RAMPHAL ( (2003) 9 SCC 606) and it has been held as under:
"8. Section 96 and 100 of the CPC make provision for an appeal being preferred from every original decree or from every decree passed in appeal respectively; none of the provisions enumerates the person who can file an appeal. However, it is settled by a long catena of decisions that to be entitled to file an appeal the person must be one aggrieved by the decree. Unless a person is prejudicially or adversely affected by the decree he is not entitled to file an appeal (See Phoolchand v. Gopal Lal, Jatan Kumar Golcha v. Golcha Properties (P) Ltd. Ganga Bai v. Vijay Kumar. No appeal lies against a mere finding. It is significant to note that both Sections 96 and 100 of the CPC provide for an appeal against decree and not against judgment."30
Thus, it has been held by the Appellate Court that neither Section 96 of CPC nor Section 100 of CPC restricts the class of persons who can file an appeal though not party to a suit. By referring to earlier judgments in Phoolchand's case, Jatan Kumar Golcha's case and Ganga Bai's case referred to supra it has been held in BANARSI AND OTHERS Vs. RAMPHAL (2003) 9 SCC 606) by Hon'ble Apex Court that, if a person is prejudicially or adversely affected by a decree, he would be entitled to maintain an appeal as otherwise not. As noticed from reading of Section 96 CPC, the words "aggrieved person" is not to be found therein. It does not indicate as to who are all the persons who would be entitled to challenge a decree. The substantive law provides for filing of an appeal against a decree passed by any Court exercising original jurisdiction, which would lie to a Court authorized to hear the appeals from said decisions.
31
23. Similar question came up for consideration before a Division Bench of Punjab High Court in the case of UNION OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF FOOD AND AGRICULTURE (DEPT. OF FOOD), NEW DELHI Vs. PEARL HOSIERY MILLS AND OTHERS (AIR 1961 PUNJAB 281] and it has been held that any person who is aggrieved by a decree can file an appeal and such appeal would be maintainable of course on establishing that, he is an aggrieved person. It has been held in the said judgment as under:
"16. After hearing the counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that there is no merit in this preliminary objection and defendant No.3 have a locus standi to file the present appeal, because (a) the plaintiff-firm itself, in spite of the objections of defendant no.3, impleaded them as necessary party to the suit on the ground that the suit could not be effectively disposed of in their absence, the finding of the trial Court on this point being also to the same effect; (b) they had undoubtedly an interest in the subject-matter of the suit; (c) they have been adversely affected by the decree passed by the trial Court, because the securities deposited by the plaintiff-firm with 32 defendant No.2, which could only be returned to them on the production of a 'No Demand Certificate' from the President of the Union of India, would be returned (and as a matter of fact have actually been returned) to them on the basis of this decree without the production of the above mentioned 'No Demand Certificate'; (d) S.96, Civil Procedure Code, does not in terms lay down as to who can file an appeal; it does not prescribe that it is only that person against whom a decree has been passed or against whom a relief has been granted, who can come in appeal. Any person who can show that he is aggrieved by the decree, can file an appeal against the same. For determining as to who is an aggrieved person, one has to look to all the circumstances of the case and the substance of the decree passed."
24. Yet again, in BALKRISHNA DAS AGARWAL Vs. SMT. RADHA DEVI AND OTHERS (AIR 1989 ALLAHABAD 133) similar issue came up for consideration before Division Bench of Allahabad High Court and it has been held that a person having legal grievance can maintain an appeal against a judgment and decree of a trial Court. It has been further held that a party who would benefit from change in the 33 judgment would also be entitled to maintain an appeal. In this background, it has been held by Allahabad High Court as under:
"24. We must then examine whether a party can be said to be attacking the decree or merely supporting it. If we find that the person seeking to support the decree could in fact do so only by attacking it, then he cannot be heard to support the decree and he must do so either by filing an appeal or failing that by way of cross- objection. This incidentally raises the question as to who can file the appeal? All that S.96 and S.100 of the Code prescribe, is that an appeal shall lie from every decree. These sections do not prescribe as to at whose instance such an appeal shall lie. It is, however, fundamental in view of the very nature of things that an appeal should lie only at the instance of a person who may be aggrieved by the judgment sought to be appealed against. A party who would benefit from change in the judgment, therefore, would have an appealable interest."
"25. What is of importance to note is that the person filing an appeal must have a legal grievance against a decision which had wrongly deprived him of some thing or affects his title to some thing. In Corpus Juris Secondum 34 Vol.IV this phrase has been defined thus:
"Broadly speaking a party or person is aggrieved by a decision only when it operates directly and injuriously upon his personal, pecuniary or proprietary rights."
25. Thus, when the above dicta laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court as well as by High Courts of Allahabad and Punjab, is read along with substantive law namely, Section 96 CPC and procedural law namely, Order 41 CPC, it would clearly indicate that a person against whom decree is not passed can maintain an appeal if he is able to demonstrate that he would be affected by such a decree or said decree would be against his interest or change of said decree would enure to his benefit. In these eventualities Appellate Court would be entitled to entertain such an appeal.
26. In the background of what has been stated above, if facts on hand are examined, it can be 35 noticed that 8th defendant in the suit O.S.No.219/1994 filed an appeal being aggrieved by partial judgment and decree passed in said suit by trial Court on 29.09.1995 decreeing the Suit against defendants 1, 2, 3, 5 & 6. Grievance of 8th defendant was: at the time of passing of partial decree, he had a right to object to the same as it would have prejudicially affected his right and even by consent such a decree could not have been passed by trial Court since suit itself was barred by limitation. Admittedly, 8th defendant had been granted time by trial Court itself to file written statement and it was yet to be filed. In fact, trial Court had adjourned the suit on 26.08.1995 to 21.10.1995 for said purpose amongst others. However, during the interregnum period, partial decree has been passed on 29.09.1995 that too by preponing/advancing the case at the behest and instance of plaintiff on the one hand and defendants-1,2,3,5 & 6 on the other hand by receiving written statement under which defendants- 36 1,2,3,5 & 6 conceded for a decree being passed in favour of plaintiff. Undisputedly no notice on application for advancement of the suit was served on the 8th defendant. He had not yet filed his written statement and undisputedly he had been granted time till 21.10.2005 to file his written statement by trial Court itself. He was not heard in the matter before passing partial decree. Application for advancement of case from 21.10.1995 to 29.09.1995 was not served either on 8th defendant or his learned advocate representing him in the suit. Thus, in the absence of 8th defendant and his counsel and behind his back, a partial decree came to be passed in favour of plaintiff and against defendants-1,2,3,5 &
6. As to whether trial Court could have passed partial decree based on the plea of plaintiff being conceded by defendants-1,2,3,5 & 6 is not an issue which is being considered in this appeal. But on the other hand, issue relates as to whether such decree can be passed without considering 8th defendant's 37 written statement or whether 8th defendant could have opposed such a decree being passed on the ground that it would affect his right or it would prejudice his defence. In the absence of such an exercise having been undertaken by trial Court partial decree could not have been passed by it.
27. It is in this background, 8th defendant pursued his grievance before lower appellate Court questioning partial judgment and decree passed by trial Court on 29.09.1995. Said appeal filed by 8th defendant was maintainable and entertainment of such appeal by lower appellate Court is not contrary to the provisions of Section 96 CPC read with Order 41 CPC. Hence, substantial question of law No.(1) formulated herein has to be answered in the affirmative and substantial question of law No.(2) in the negative.
28. However, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, this Court cannot stop at 38 it and as already observed herein above, parties to the lis having contributed to this faux pas situation, clock requires to be put back to enable the parties to work out their rights in accordance with law which can be crystallized as under:
(i). As already observed herein above, there was challenge to judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.219/1994 dated 29.09.1995 before lower appellate Court. However, lower appellate Court has proceeded to adjudicate the appeal as though it is sitting in appeal over the judgment and decree passed on 24.07.2000 having observed judgment and decree passed on 24.07.2000 has reached finality vide para 11 of its judgment. This exercise could not have been undertaken by it and same was impermissible. Lower appellate court has definitely exceeded its jurisdiction. When there has been no challenge to judgment and decree dated 24.07.2000 by either of the parties, it could not have examined the correctness or otherwise of such a decree 39 because issue of limitation was not an issue in R.A.2/2005. Though, it could have set aside the partial decree passed on 29.09.1995 and obviously this exercise was not done since remanding the matter back to trial Court for adjudication of claim of 8th defendant for denova enquiry would have been an exercise in futility since said partial judgment and decree passed on 29.9.1995 had been made absolute by trial Court subsequently on 24.7.2000 and as such it could have dismissed the appeal since partial judgment and decree passed on 29.9.1995 had been made absolute by trial Court by judgment and decree dated 24.7.2000 by reserving liberty to 8th defendant to challenge the subsequent judgment and decree passed on 24.7.2000 by trial Court. It did not carry out such an exercise. It has virtually examined the appeal as though it is sitting in judgment over judgment and decree dated 24.07.2000 passed by trial Court though it has observed it is not examining it. It is no doubt true that during pendency of appeal 40 namely, R.A.No.2/2005 (old No.146/1995) trial Court had passed judgment and decree on 24.07.2000 and Lower Appellate Court would have exercised either of the two options available before it as already noticed hereinabove. For the reasons best known, lower appellate Court did not adopt such a course and as noticed herein above, at the cost of repetition, it assumed the jurisdiction of sitting in appeal over a judgment and decree (dated 24.7.2000) which admittedly was not appealed before it. This exercise undertaken by lower appellate Court was impermissible.
29. At this juncture, contention of Mr.Pruthvi, learned Advocate appearing for first respondent can be noticed. He contends that appellant was not precluded from raising other grounds not set forth in the appeal memorandum namely 8th defendant was not precluded from urging that judgment and decree passed on 24.07.2000 is bad in law before lower 41 appellate court and it was empowered to take judicial note of the fact viz., judgment and decree dated 24.7.2000 having been passed by trial Court as a subsequent event to dismiss the suit while examining the appeal. To examine said contention, it would be necessary to extract Rule 2 of Order 41 CPC at the cost of repetition. It reads as under:
Order 41 Rule 2 "Grounds which may be taken in appeal.- The appellant shall not, except by leave of the court, urge or be heard in support of any ground of objection not set forth in the memorandum of appeal; but the Appellate Court, in deciding the appeal, shall not be confined to the grounds of objection set forth in the memorandum of appeal or taken by leave of the court under this rule:
Provided that the court shall not rest its decision on any other ground unless the party who may be affected thereby has had a sufficient opportunity of contesting the case on that ground." By reading of above rule, it would indicate that appellant can urge any other grounds not urged in 42 the appeal memorandum, but with the leave of the Court. However, this rule does not empower the lower appellate Court to travel beyond the decree that has been questioned and within this sphere it can examine the correctness or otherwise of such a decree by examining all facets. However, if any other decree has been passed by the trial Court subsequently, it requires to be examined only after either appeal memorandum is amended or new prayer is included, as otherwise, appellate court would be clutching jurisdiction by sitting in an appeal over a judgment and decree which is not before it or in other words it would be sitting in appeal over a judgment and decree which has not been challenged. That is not the scope and purport of Rule (2) Order 41 CPC. The real purpose is to empower lower appellate Court to examine the decree from all angles and not confining to the grounds urged. Even if any ground has been left out despite challenge to the decree though not urged, appellate 43 Court's power cannot be restricted to grounds urged in the appeal memorandum alone and its power would be wide enough to examine all other grounds that can be taken note of by it since appeal being a continuation of original proceedings. It is in this background, Rule (2) of Order 41 CPC requires to be understood and applied. In fact lower appellate court has noticed that judgment and decree passed on 24.07.2000 has reached finality. Yet, it has proceeded to examine as to whether trial Court was justified in decreeing the suit on the ground that the suit itself was barred by limitation which issue was not at all under challenge inasmuch as, no issue had been raised and adjudicated by trial Court regarding limitation.
30. In this background, contention of Mr.Prithvi, learned Advocate appearing for 8th defendant cannot be accepted. As seen from the judgment and decree passed by lower appellate 44 Court, it has examined the issue regarding maintainability of the suit and has dismissed the suit itself. This was impermissible. To that extent, judgment and decree passed by lower appellate Court cannot be sustained and it requires to be set aside and accordingly it is set aside.
31. Though Mr.Pruthvi, learned Advocate appearing for 8th defendant has contended that lower appellate Court could not have remanded the matter back to trial Court for adjudication afresh, as it would have been an exercise in futility since suit was primafacie, barred by limitation, cannot be accepted by this Court. It is no doubt true that plaintiff along with plaint had filed an application under Section 5 read with Section 14 of Limitation Act to condone the delay in filing the suit, in the event of trial Court coming to a conclusion that there has been delay in filing the suit. However, it is to be noted that it has been contended in the plaint particularly at 45 paragraph 8 that cause of action for filing the suit arose on the dates when plaintiff made demands for completion of sale transaction. It has been specifically contended as under:
"8. The cause of action for this suit as arisen at Sominakoppa Village, Shimoga Taluk a place within the jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court from 13/3/1981 when the agreement of sale was executed and the plaintiff was put in possession of the property and also from 25/6/1987 when the plaintiff paid further consideration of Rs.5,800/- and also when the proceedings before the Land Tribunal concluded and also when the plaintiff and Imam Saheb waited for the final decision of the Hon'ble High Court and also from 14/5/1988 when Sri.Imam Saheb expired and also from 31/5/1988 when the 8 th defendant filed O.S.No.128/88 on the file of the Hon'ble Additional Civil Judge, Shimoga and from 16/2/1994 when the judgment was pronounced in that suit and the cause of action also arises at 13/3/1981 when the possession of the plaintiff commenced and on other dates when the plaintiffs make demand for the completion of the transaction etc., 46
32. It has been the specific case of plaintiff that deceased Nyamati Mohammed Imam Saheb had agreed to execute sale deed after disposal of proceedings before Land Tribunal. It is not in dispute that as per Ex.P-1 - agreement to sell, deceased Sri Nyamti Mohammed Imam Saheb in the presence of witnesses had received further amount of ` 5,800/- on 25.06.1987. Signature of deceased Sri Nyamti Mohammed Imam Saheb is found in Ex.P-1 which came to be marked as Ex.P-1(b) and same is also not disputed. In contract of sale of an immovable property, normally time is not the essence of the contract unless contrary is agreed to. For this proposition, judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in BALASAHEB DAYANDEO NAIK (DEAD) THROUGH L.Rs. & Ors. Vs. APPASAHEB DATTATRAYA PAWAR (2008 AIR SCW 1183) can be looked up wherein it has been held by their Lordships as under: 47
"11. This Court in Swarnam Ramachandran (Smt.) and Another Vs. Aravacode Chakungal Jayapalan, (2004) 8 SCC 689 has once again reiterated that time is not the essence of contract relating to immoveable property. The following statement of law in para 12 are rightly applicable to the case on hand:
"12. That time is presumed not to be of essence of the contract relating to immovable property, but it is of essence in contracts of reconveyance or renewal of lease. The onus to plead and prove that time was the essence of the contract is on the person alleging it, thus giving an opportunity to the other side to adduce rebuttal evidence that time was not of essence. That when the plaintiff pleads that time was not of essence and the defendant does not deny it by evidence, the court is bound to accept the pleas of the plaintiff. In cases where notice is given making time of the essence, it is duty of the court to examine the real intention of the party giving such notice by looking at the facts and circumstances of each case. That a vendor has no right to make time of the essence, unless he is ready and willing to proceed to completion and secondly, when the vendor purports to make time of the essence, the purchaser 48 must be guilty of such gross default as to entitle the vendor to rescind the contract."
12. As observed in the said decision xxx xxx xxx case on hand. Even otherwise, para 11 of the judgment shows that the subject-matter of the property was an urban immoveable property and in such special circumstance relaxed the general rule that time is not the essence of the contract in the case of immoveable properties. In the case on hand, the details furnished in the agreement clearly show that the subject-matter of the property is an agricultural land situated in Kolhapur District, Maharashtra. In such circumstances, the decision in K.S.Vidyanadam and Ors. (supra) is not applicable to the facts on hand."
33. Normally, question of limitation is a mixed question of fact and law. Plea is required to be raised, issue has to be framed, evidence has to be tendered and parties to the lis have to prove and disprove the same on such issue being framed as otherwise, parties would be groping in the dark. Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of RAMESH B DESAI vs BIPIN VADILAL MEHRA (AIR 2006 SC 3672) 49 has held that plea of limitation cannot be decided as abstract principle of law divorced from facts as in every case the starting point of limitation has to be ascertained which is entirely a question of fact and the plea of limitation is a mixed question of law and fact.
34. In the instant case, for the first time before the lower appellate Court, 8th defendant in the grounds urged in appeal memorandum put forth the plea of suit being barred by limitation. Plaintiff did not get opportunity to establish and demonstrate as to how the suit was in fact filed within time and it was not barred by limitation. No issue was framed by the trial Court and no evidence was tendered by either of the parties. 8th defendant has not entered the witness box and he was not extended an opportunity to cross examine P.W-1. Plaintiff has not been given an opportunity to rebut the contention raised by 8th defendant in this regard. Merely because plaintiff had filed an application under 50 Section 5 read with Section 14 of Limitation Act before trial Court seeking alleged condonation of delay if any in filing the suit, that by itself would not suffice for the appellate Court to arrive at a conclusion that suit was barred by limitation. The issue of limitation was required to be examined by the trial Court on the basis of pleadings of the parties. Admittedly 8th defendant has not been extended the opportunity of filing the written statement. Defendants - 1, 2,3,5 & 6 who appeared and filed written statements have conceded for the suit being decreed. Thus, there was no contest to the plaintiff's claim. In this background, trial Court has not framed any issue and as such, trial Court has not examined the issue of limitation in proper perspective. Even finding recorded by the trial Court at paragraph 16 of its judgment is not based on the pleadings and evidence of parties. Hence, there being no plea and when no issue was framed and no evidence was tendered by parties on the issue of 51 limitation, lower appellate Court for the first time embarked upon an enquiry to examine the issue regarding maintainability of suit on the ground of limitation which was impermissible.
35. As already held herein above, clock requires to be put back namely, parties are to be relegated to their respective positions to demonstrate as to how the suit was not barred by limitation or as to how suit is barred by limitation since same being a question of fact and law, and as such it would be appropriate to remit the matter back to trial Court for adjudication afresh. Admittedly, on account of non- filing of the written statement by 8th defendant, trial Court has proceeded to frame issues on the basis of the written statement filed by defendants-1,2,3,5 & 6 and on the basis of consent given by them for decree being passed trial Court has decreed the suit without even considering the right of 8th defendant and effect of such decree on 8th defendant's right over suit 52 schedule property was not at all considered. Being deprived of an opportunity to file written statement, 8th defendant had admittedly filed petitions under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC in Misc.No.375/2005 which undisputedly has also been dismissed. Hence, ends of justice would be met if 8th defendant is afforded an opportunity to file his written statement and plaintiff is also being permitted to lead further evidence in this regard. As such, the matter requires to be remitted back to trial Court by setting aside judgment and decree passed by lower appellate Court in R.A.No.2/2005 (old No.146/1995) dated 31.10.2009 as also the judgment and decree passed on 29.09.1995 and 24.07.2000. However, it is made clear that setting aside of partial judgment and decree passed on 29.09.1995 would not come in the way of trial court considering the written statement filed by defendants-1,2,3,5 & 6 who have conceded to the decree being passed against them and in favour of plaintiff after considering entire material on record 53 and passing suitable judgment and decree thereafter. However, considering the fact that the suit is of the year 1994 and 8th defendant also not being diligent enough in prosecuting his cause before the Courts, the parties are required to be put on terms.
36. For the reasons aforestated, I pass following:
ORDER
i) Appeal is hereby allowed in part by answering substantial questions of law as noted above.
ii) Judgment and decree passed by
Prl.District Judge, Shimoga in
R.A.No.2/2005 (old No.146/1995)
dated 31.10.2009 is hereby set
aside.
iii) Judgment and decrees passed in O.S.No.219/1994 namely, partial decree dated 20.09.1995 and 54 subsequent decree dated 24.07.2000 by Prl.Civil Judge, Jr.Dn., Shimoga are also hereby set aside.
iv) Matter is remitted back to Prl.Civil Judge (Jr.Dn), Shimoga for adjudication of the suit O.S.No.219/1994 afresh. The trial Court shall keep in mind observations made herein above and dispose of the suit on merits and in accordance with law.
v) Liberty is reserved to 8th defendant to file written statement within 15 days from the date of first appearance on payment of costs of ` 15,000/- to the plaintiff. Payment of costs shall be condition precedent for proceeding with the suit and for receiving the written statement.
55
vi) Trial Court is at liberty to frame additional issues and dispose of the suit expeditiously and not later than eight months from the date of first appearance of parties which shall be 18.04.2013.
vii) Parties to the lis shall co-operate with the trial Court and in the event of there being any non-co-operation, trial Court will be at liberty to regulate its proceedings if necessary by imposing costs on the parties who seek adjournments.
viii) Respondent No.1 shall pay to the appellant herein the costs of this appeal which is quantified at ` 5,000/- . Payment of costs shall be condition precedent for proceeding with the suit.
56
ix) Trial Court shall proceed to adjudicate the matter without being influenced by any observations made by it or by the lower appellate Court.
x) Registry is directed to send the
records to respective Courts
forthwith and on emergent basis
since date of appearance has been
fixed as 18.04.2013.
Sd/-
JUDGE
*sp/yn