Summary
Purchasers who were not parties to suits challenging agreements to sell failed to establish grounds for leave to appeal. Their independent sale deeds, executed through the owners’ attorneys, were neither challenged nor adjudicated in those suits. The decrees were not judgments in rem and did not bind the purchasers. A non-party seeking appellate leave must demonstrate actual prejudice to legal rights, rather than merely assert it. Refusal of leave was upheld and the appeals dismissed.
Issues
- Whether non-party purchasers under independent sale deeds were persons aggrieved entitled to leave to appeal from decrees concerning agreements to sell.
Held
- A non-party may appeal with the appellate court’s leave where the judgment binds or prejudicially affects that person. The concept of an aggrieved person depends on the statutory and factual context, but requires injury to a right or interest rather than an imaginary or merely remote grievance. (¶¶ 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20)
- The suits concerned agreements to sell; the appellants’ sale deeds were executed under general powers of attorney and were not challenged or made the subject of relief. The decrees bound the suit parties and were not judgments in rem binding these appellants. (¶¶ 5, 21, 22)
- The purchasers produced no material demonstrating how execution of the decrees would prejudice their legal rights. Merely asserting adverse effect did not establish standing for leave to appeal; rejection of their applications disclosed no infirmity. (¶¶ 22, 23, 24)
Result
Appeals dismissed. The High Court’s refusal of leave to appeal was upheld; parties to bear their own costs.