Case Note & Summary
The judgment pertains to a civil application filed by third parties (Annasaheb and Ramesh Gandhale) seeking leave to appeal against a decree passed by the District Judge-2, Shrirampur in Regular Civil Appeal No.12 of 2009. The background involves a suit filed by Sumatilal Gujarani (respondent no.1) for declaration of title and possession over suit property (gut no. 129) based on a registered sale deed dated 21-10-1991 executed by original owner Ajitkumar Mirikar. The suit also challenged a subsequent sale deed dated 15-02-1999 executed by Ajitkumar's heirs in favour of Ratilal Kothari (respondent no.5). The trial court dismissed the suit, but the first appellate court partly allowed the appeal, cancelling the subsequent sale deed to the extent of the suit property. The applicants claim title through Ratilal and contend that the decree affects their rights. The court examined whether the applicants, as third parties, have a right to appeal and whether the application is within limitation. The court found that the application was filed on 27-06-2019, nearly three years after the decree dated 18-07-2016, and thus barred by limitation under Article 116 of the Limitation Act. The court also held that no substantial question of law arises as the applicants' predecessor was a purchaser pendente lite, and the decree does not cause any prejudice to the applicants. The court dismissed the application with costs.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Third Party Application for Leave to Appeal - Order 41 Rule 1 CPC - Limitation - The applicants, claiming through a subsequent purchaser, sought leave to appeal against a decree cancelling the sale deed in their favour. The court held that the application was barred by limitation as it was filed beyond 90 days from the decree, and no substantial question of law arose. The applicants failed to show any prejudice or legal right affected by the decree. (Paras 1-18) B) Limitation Act - Article 116 - Limitation for Appeal - The period of limitation for filing an appeal is 90 days from the date of decree. The application was filed on 27-06-2019 against a decree dated 18-07-2016, which is beyond the prescribed period. The court found no sufficient cause for condonation of delay. (Paras 10-12) C) Transfer of Property Act - Section 52 - Lis Pendens - The subsequent sale deed in favour of the applicants' predecessor was executed during the pendency of the suit, and thus, the applicants are bound by the decree. The court noted that the doctrine of lis pendens applies, and the applicants cannot claim independent rights. (Paras 13-15)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the applicants, as third parties claiming title through a subsequent purchaser, are entitled to leave to appeal against a decree passed in a suit for declaration and cancellation of sale deed, and whether the application is within limitation.
Final Decision
The civil application is dismissed with costs.
Law Points
- Third party application for leave to appeal
- Limitation for filing appeal
- Substantial question of law
- Right of third party to challenge decree
- Order 41 Rule 1 CPC
