Case Note & Summary
The case involves a second appeal filed by the defendants against the judgment and decree of the II Additional District Judge, Beed, dated 17.09.1994, in Regular Civil Appeal No.348 of 1984. The plaintiffs (respondents) had filed a suit for reconveyance and possession of suit land Survey No. 20/AA/@ of village Charatha, Tq. and District Beed, with mesne profits. The plaintiffs claimed that they were brothers inter se, and defendant No.1 was their father. The suit land was ancestral joint family property of plaintiffs and defendant No.1. They did not deny execution of a registered conditional sale deed dated 14.06.1971 executed by plaintiff No.1 and defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.2 for a nominal consideration of Rs.1,000/-. The plaintiffs alleged that defendant No.2 had agreed to reconvey the suit land in their favour on repayment of the consideration, but defendant No.2 refused to do so. The trial court decreed the suit, and the first appellate court confirmed the decree. The defendants appealed to the High Court. The High Court framed a substantial question of law: whether the plaintiffs proved the agreement to reconvey. The court held that the burden of proof was on the plaintiffs to establish the oral agreement to reconvey, and they failed to discharge that burden. The evidence on record did not support the existence of such an agreement. The court found that the findings of the courts below were perverse and based on no evidence. Consequently, the second appeal was allowed, the judgments and decrees of the lower courts were set aside, and the suit was dismissed. No order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Second Appeal - Substantial Question of Law - The appeal involves a substantial question of law regarding the burden of proof for an oral agreement to reconvey. (Para 1) B) Transfer of Property Act - Conditional Sale - Section 54 - The sale deed dated 14.06.1971 was a conditional sale, but the plaintiffs failed to prove the alleged oral agreement to reconvey. (Paras 4-6) C) Evidence Act - Burden of Proof - Section 101 - The burden to prove the agreement to reconvey was on the plaintiffs, and they did not discharge it. (Paras 6-7) D) Civil Procedure - Second Appeal - Interference with Findings of Fact - The High Court can interfere if the findings are perverse or based on no evidence. (Para 7)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the plaintiffs proved the existence of an oral agreement to reconvey the suit land, and whether the courts below erred in decreeing the suit without sufficient evidence.
Final Decision
Second appeal allowed. The judgments and decrees of the trial court and first appellate court are set aside. The suit for reconveyance and possession is dismissed. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Burden of proof
- Agreement to reconvey
- Conditional sale
- Section 54 Transfer of Property Act
- 1882
- Section 101 Indian Evidence Act
- 1872
