GOVINDN Vs. SUBRAMANIAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 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. 1 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 purchaser from respondents Nos. 4 to 6. But it is difficult to appreciate as to how it can be said that he had no locus standi to maintain the second appeal and for demonstrating that his vendors had legal title to convey the property to him. Order 41, Rule 4 of the code of Civil Procedure 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: