Bombay High Court Dismisses Second Appeal in Possession Suit, Upholds Concurrent Findings for Specific Performance. Concurrent findings of fact under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 cannot be interfered with in second appeal as no substantial question of law arose.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: BOMBAY
  • 4
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The appellants, as plaintiffs, instituted Special Civil Suit No.72 of 2014 seeking possession of suit lands. They claimed that vide two agreements dated 19th April 2001 and 7th December 2001, they had agreed to sell the suit lands to the defendants on distinct terms and conditions. Possession of the lands was handed over to the defendants. The plaintiffs alleged breach of agreement terms and unauthorized construction, seeking a decree of possession. The defendants filed a counter-claim seeking specific performance of the agreements. The Trial Court dismissed the suit and decreed the counter-claim. The Appellate Court confirmed the decree on 4th December 2009. Aggrieved, the plaintiffs preferred a second appeal. The High Court, after hearing counsel, found that the courts below had concurrently held that the plaintiffs failed to prove breach and that the defendants were entitled to specific performance. The High Court noted that no substantial question of law arose and dismissed the appeal, upholding the concurrent findings.

Headnote

A) Civil Procedure - Second Appeal - Concurrent Findings - Section 100 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - The appellants challenged concurrent findings of fact in a second appeal. The High Court held that no substantial question of law arose and dismissed the appeal, affirming that concurrent findings cannot be interfered with unless perverse or based on no evidence. (Paras 1-4)

B) Contract Law - Specific Performance - Agreement to Sell - The respondents sought specific performance of agreements dated 19th April 2001 and 7th December 2001. The courts below decreed the counter-claim for specific performance, which was upheld in appeal. (Paras 2-4)

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the courts below warrant interference in a second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

Second Appeal dismissed. Interim Application disposed of. No order as to costs.

Law Points

  • Concurrent findings of fact
  • Second appeal jurisdiction
  • Section 100 CPC
  • Substantial question of law
  • Specific performance
  • Possession suit
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2021 LawText (BOM) (03) 110

Second Appeal No.590 of 2020 with Interim Application No.440 of 2020

2021-03-18

Sandeep K. Shinde

Mr. R.M. Hardas i/by Mr. Pratik B. Rahade for the Appellants, Mr. Girish R. Agarwal for the Respondent No.1

Shri Ramdas M. Handore & Ors.

Shri Narayan D. Pawar & Anr.

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Civil suit for possession and counter-claim for specific performance of agreement to sell.

Remedy Sought

Appellants sought possession of suit lands; respondents sought specific performance of agreements.

Filing Reason

Appellants alleged breach of agreement and unauthorized construction by respondents.

Previous Decisions

Trial Court dismissed suit and decreed counter-claim; Appellate Court confirmed decree on 4th December 2009.

Issues

Whether the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the courts below warrant interference in a second appeal under Section 100 CPC.

Submissions/Arguments

Appellants argued that courts below erred in dismissing the suit and decreeing counter-claim. Respondents supported concurrent findings.

Ratio Decidendi

In a second appeal under Section 100 CPC, the High Court cannot interfere with concurrent findings of fact unless a substantial question of law arises. The appellants failed to raise any substantial question of law.

Judgment Excerpts

Plaintifss in the Special Civil Suit No.72 of 2014 have preferred this appeals against the concurrent fndings recorded by the two Courts below. No substantial question of law arises in this appeal. Hence, the appeal is dismissed.

Procedural History

Appellants filed Special Civil Suit No.72 of 2014 for possession. Trial Court dismissed suit and decreed counter-claim for specific performance. Appellate Court confirmed decree on 4th December 2009. Appellants filed Second Appeal No.590 of 2020.

Acts & Sections

  • Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Section 100
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Acquits Accused in Dowry Death Case Due to Lack of Evidence of Demand of Dowry and Harassment. Conviction under Sections 302, 304B, 498A, 201 IPC set aside as prosecution failed to prove dowry demand and cruelty beyond reasonable do...
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Dismisses Writ Petition Challenging Rejection of Temporary Injunction in Lease Dispute — Plaintiff Failed to Establish Prima Facie Case of Possession After Lease Expiry. The court held that the plaintiff did not make out a prima f...