Case Note & Summary
The appellants, original defendants in Regular Civil Suit No.350 of 2001, challenged the concurrent decrees for specific performance of an agreement of sale dated 14/6/2001. The suit property was a parcel of land in Mauje Yeoul, Taluka Khatav, and the defendant agreed to sell his 5 anna 4 pai share for Rs.70,000/-. The plaintiff paid earnest money of Rs.11,000/-. The trial court decreed the suit on 10/3/2011, directing the defendants to execute the sale deed on acceptance of Rs.59,000/-. The first appellate court dismissed Regular Civil Appeal No.38/2011 on 22/10/2018. In the Second Appeal under Section 100 CPC, the High Court held that no substantial question of law arose as the findings were concurrent and based on evidence. The appeal was dismissed.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Second Appeal - Substantial Question of Law - Section 100 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - The court reiterated that a second appeal lies only on a substantial question of law and not on re-appreciation of evidence. Concurrent findings of fact cannot be interfered with unless perverse or based on no evidence. (Paras 1-3)
B) Contract Law - Specific Performance - Agreement of Sale - Earnest Money - The plaintiff paid earnest money of Rs.11,000/- out of total consideration of Rs.70,000/-. The trial court decreed the suit directing execution of sale deed on payment of balance Rs.59,000/-. The first appellate court confirmed the decree. (Paras 1-4)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, raises any substantial question of law warranting interference with the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the trial court and the first appellate court in a suit for specific performance of an agreement of sale.
Final Decision
The Second Appeal is dismissed. No substantial question of law arises. The concurrent findings of fact are not interfered with.
Law Points
- Specific performance
- concurrent findings of fact
- second appeal
- substantial question of law
- Section 100 CPC
Case Details
2022 LawText (BOM) (04) 87
Second Appeal No.113 of 2020 with Civil Application No.104 of 2020
Mr. Dilip Bodake with Sharad Bhosale for the appellants; Mr. Sachin S. Punde for the respondent
Haridas Vishnu Sawant and Bhanudas Bajirao Jadhav (since deceased through legal heirs)
Sou.Nalini Satish Jadhav and Satish Dhanaji Jadhav
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Second Appeal against concurrent decrees for specific performance of an agreement of sale.
Remedy Sought
The appellants (original defendants) sought to set aside the decrees for specific performance.
Filing Reason
The appellants were aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 10/3/2011 in Regular Civil Suit No.350/2001 and the dismissal of their appeal in Regular Civil Appeal No.38/2011 on 22/10/2018.
Previous Decisions
The trial court decreed the suit for specific performance; the first appellate court dismissed the appeal.
Issues
Whether the Second Appeal raises any substantial question of law under Section 100 CPC.
Submissions/Arguments
Not mentioned in the provided text.
Ratio Decidendi
A second appeal under Section 100 CPC lies only on a substantial question of law. Concurrent findings of fact cannot be re-appreciated unless perverse or based on no evidence. In this case, no substantial question of law was involved.
Judgment Excerpts
The appellants in this Appeal are the defendants in the Regular Civil Suit No.350 of 2001 filed by the plaintiff, specific performance of agreement of sale dated 14/6/2001 in respect of the property belonging to the defendant and which is alleged to have been agreed to be sold to the plaintiff for a consideration of Rs.70,000/-.
The Suit came to be decreed with costs and the defendants were directed to execute the sale transaction in favour of the plaintiff by accepting the amount of Rs.59,000/- and perform his part of the contract.
Procedural History
Regular Civil Suit No.350/2001 was decreed on 10/3/2011. The defendants appealed in Regular Civil Appeal No.38/2011, which was dismissed on 22/10/2018. The defendants then filed the present Second Appeal No.113/2020.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Section 100
