SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Before:- S.B. Majmudar and U. C. Banerjee, JJ.

Civil Appeal No. 459 of 1999 (arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 12281 of 1998). D/d. 1.2.1999.

Govindan - Appellant

Versus

Subramaniam and others - Respondents

Civil Procedure Code, 1908, Order 41 Rule 4, Section 100 - Second appeal - Maintainability of - Locus standi - Appellant purchased property from vendors and was defendant in a suit - Appellant's vendors have not filed any appeal would therefore not come in the way - He had locus standi to maintain second appeal and for demonstrating that his vendors had legal title convey the property to him - Second appeal restored.

[Paras 3 and 4]

JUDGMENT

S.B. Majmudar, J. - Leave granted.

2. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties the appeal was taken up for final disposal forthwith.

3. The short question is whether the High Court in the impugned judgment was justified in taking the view that defendant No. 2 who was one of the appellants in the Second Appeal had no locus standi to maintain the same. It was held that defendant No. 2 was a purchaser from respondents Nos. 4 to 6. But it is difficult to appreciate as to how it can be said that he had to locus standi to maintain the second appeal and for demonstrating that his vendors had legal title convey the property to him. Order 41, Rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Code also will apply in such a case. The observation of the High Court that the appellant's vendors have not filed any appeal would therefore not come in the way. It is obvious that once they had sold out the disputed properties to the appellant-defendant No. 2 they would not be interested in prosecuting the proceedings any further and the real interest would be of only the defendant No. 2 - the appellant herein to try to show that his vendors had legal title to convey the property in question. We may not be understood to have expressed any opinion on the merits of the controversy between the parties. But what all we find is that the High Court while dealing with the legal position has held that the appeal filed by the appellant to be not maintainable. It is pertinent to note that the High Court has framed substantial question of law as mentioned in paragraph 3 of the judgment. It reads as under :

"Whether the Courts below have properly appreciated and applied the principles under Section 16(3) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1956, as amended by Act 68 of 1976, to the facts of the present case?"

4. This question is not answered at all on the ground that the appellant had no locus standi to file the appeal. Consequently, the impugned-judgment and order are set aside. The second appeal is restored to the file of the High Court with a request to redecide the same on the substantial question of law which has been framed and answer the same on merits after hearing the parties. We express no opinion on the said substantial question of law. It is obvious that the same will have to be decided by the High Court in accordance with law. The appeal is accordingly allowed. There would be no order as to costs.

Appeal allowed.