Case Note & Summary
The respondent (original plaintiff) filed a suit for specific performance of a contract for sale of immovable property against the appellants (original defendants). The plaintiff relied on a registered written agreement for sale executed by the defendants on 9 July 2007 and alleged readiness and willingness to perform her part, but the defendants refused. The defendants contested, claiming the amount paid was a hand-loan and the agreement was security, and that the loan had been repaid. The trial court rejected the defendants' theory and decreed the suit. The lower appellate court concurred. In the second appeal, the High Court found no perversity or unreasonableness in the concurrent findings, which were supported by evidence and considered all relevant circumstances. The court held that no substantial question of law arose under Section 100 CPC and dismissed the appeal.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Second Appeal - Substantial Question of Law - Section 100 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - The High Court held that no substantial question of law arises for determination where concurrent findings of fact by the trial court and first appellate court are supported by evidence, are not perverse, and take into account all relevant materials. The court found no fault with the concurrent findings in favour of the plaintiff regarding the agreement for sale. (Paras 6-7)
Issue of Consideration
Whether any substantial question of law arises from the concurrent findings of the courts below in a suit for specific performance of a contract for sale of immovable property.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the second appeal, holding that no substantial question of law arises for determination. The concurrent findings of the courts below were upheld.
Law Points
- Specific performance of contract
- Concurrent findings of fact
- Substantial question of law
- Section 100 CPC
Case Details
2020 LawText (BOM) (03) 71
Second Appeal No. 665 of 2018
Mr. Avinash B. Avhad for Appellants, Ms. Savita A. Prabhune for Respondent no.1
Shri. Suresh Bhalchandra Nagarkar and Sou. Swati Suresh Nagarkar
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Civil suit for specific performance of a contract for sale of immovable property.
Remedy Sought
The plaintiff sought specific performance of the agreement for sale of immovable property executed by the defendants.
Filing Reason
The defendants refused to perform the agreement for sale after the plaintiff paid consideration and was ready and willing to perform her part.
Previous Decisions
The trial court decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff, and the lower appellate court dismissed the appeal, concurring with the trial court.
Issues
Whether any substantial question of law arises from the concurrent findings of the courts below.
Submissions/Arguments
The appellants argued that the amount paid was a hand-loan and the agreement was security, and that the loan had been repaid. Alternatively, they submitted that no substantial question of law arises.
Ratio Decidendi
In a second appeal under Section 100 CPC, the High Court will not interfere with concurrent findings of fact unless they are perverse or unsupported by evidence. Here, the findings were supported by evidence and no substantial question of law arose.
Judgment Excerpts
No fault can be found with concurrent findings of two Courts below in favour of the Plaintiff.
No substantial question of law arises for the determination of this Court accordingly.
Procedural History
The plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance in the trial court, which was decreed. The defendants appealed to the District Court at Baramati, which dismissed the appeal. The defendants then filed the present second appeal in the High Court.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Section 100
