Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose from a civil suit concerning the validity of a sale deed (Ex.P-1) executed and registered on September 29, 1959. The appellants were the plaintiffs, and the respondents were the defendants. The plaintiffs claimed that the sale deed was valid and that adequate consideration had been paid. The defendants contended that the sale deed had been obtained by fraud, misrepresentation, and without consideration. The trial court dismissed the suit. On appeal, the first appellate court reversed the trial court, holding that neither fraud nor misrepresentation was proved and that adequate consideration had passed, thus the sale deed was valid. The respondents then filed a second appeal before the Punjab and Haryana High Court. The High Court reversed the first appellate court, finding that there was no proof that the appellants had paid the consideration. The High Court examined the accounts maintained by the appellants and observed that no evidence had been led to show that Rs.2350/- were due from the respondents on the basis of Bahi's account and bonds, and that the payment of Rs.1650/- had not been proved. Accordingly, the High Court confirmed the trial court's dismissal, albeit for different reasons. The appellants approached the Supreme Court by special leave. The Supreme Court noted that the question whether consideration has been passed is a pure question of fact. It observed that although normally the High Court might not interfere with the finding recorded by the appellate court, in view of the diverse views taken by the trial court and the appellate court, the High Court was impelled to examine the question and record a finding. The Supreme Court also noted that the material evidence and relevant circumstances were not adverted to by the first appellate court, and the High Court had done that exercise. Since the High Court's finding was one of fact, the Supreme Court held it was not a fit case for further interference. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed without costs.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Second Appeal - Scope of Interference with Finding of Fact - No specific Act cited - The High Court in second appeal was justified in reversing the first appellate court's finding that consideration was paid under a sale deed because the trial court and appellate court had divergent findings and the first appellate court did not consider material evidence. The Supreme Court declined to interfere as the High Court's determination was a finding of fact. Held that the appeal is dismissed, no costs. B) Constitutional Law - Special Leave Petition - Scope of Article 136 of the Constitution of India - No specific Act cited - The Supreme Court will not interfere with a finding of fact recorded by the High Court in second appeal under Article 136 unless perversity is shown. The High Court had considered the accounts and bonds and found no proof of payment of consideration. Held that the Supreme Court does not find it a fit case for further interference.
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court was justified in reversing the first appellate court's finding of fact regarding payment of consideration under the sale deed and whether the sale deed was invalid for want of consideration.
Final Decision
Appeal dismissed; the High Court's judgment was upheld; no order as to costs.
Law Points
- Question whether consideration has passed under a sale deed is a pure question of fact
- In second appeal
- High Court may re-examine a factual finding if trial and appellate courts have taken diverse views and relevant evidence was not adverted to
- Supreme Court will not interfere with a finding of fact recorded by High Court in second appeal under Article 136 unless perversity is shown.
