Case Note & Summary
The appellant, original plaintiff, filed Regular Civil Suit No.73 of 2007 for specific performance of an alleged oral agreement for sale of 1.01 HR land out of Survey Nos. 171 and 172, total area 3.65 HR, in mouza Wagholi, owned by defendant nos.1 and 2. The plaintiff claimed that on Gudi Padwa of 2006, an oral agreement was reached for a consideration of Rs.91,000/-, and he paid earnest money of Rs.20,000/-. Possession was allegedly handed over, and the sale deed was to be executed on 3.11.2006 after conversion of land to Class I. The defendants failed to convert the land. The suit was dismissed by the trial court on 28.3.2010. The plaintiff's appeal (RCA No.274/2010) was dismissed by the District Judge, Wardha on 20.4.2012. Hence, the second appeal. The High Court framed a substantial question of law: whether the concurrent findings are perverse. The court held that the plaintiff failed to prove the oral agreement and his readiness and willingness. The findings of fact by both courts were based on evidence and not perverse. The second appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Specific Relief - Specific Performance of Contract - Oral Agreement - Burden of Proof - Plaintiff must prove existence of oral agreement and his readiness and willingness to perform his part - Courts below concurrently held that plaintiff failed to prove the oral agreement and his readiness and willingness - Held, no substantial question of law arises for interference in second appeal (Paras 1-10).
B) Civil Procedure - Second Appeal - Concurrent Findings of Fact - Interference - Under Section 100 CPC, High Court cannot interfere with concurrent findings of fact unless perverse or based on no evidence - Held, findings of courts below are based on appreciation of evidence and not perverse (Paras 1-10).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the concurrent findings of fact by the courts below that the plaintiff failed to prove the oral agreement for sale and his readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract warrant interference in second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
Final Decision
Second Appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.
Law Points
- Specific performance
- oral agreement
- readiness and willingness
- concurrent findings
- substantial question of law
- Section 16(c) Specific Relief Act
- 1963
Case Details
2020 LawText (BOM) (09) 75
SECOND APPEAL NO.400 OF 2012
Mr.S.P.Hedaoo for Appellant, Mr.Rahul Bhangde for Respondent Nos.1 to 3
Janardan s/o. Kisanaji Parbat
Sau.Rekha w/o. Marotrao Parbat, Bharat s/o. Marotrao Parbat, Marotrao s/o. Keshav Parbat
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Civil suit for specific performance of an oral agreement for sale of agricultural land.
Remedy Sought
Plaintiff sought decree of specific performance of oral agreement for sale of 1.01 HR land.
Filing Reason
Defendants failed to execute sale deed despite payment of earnest money and possession.
Previous Decisions
Trial court dismissed suit on 28.3.2010; First appellate court dismissed appeal on 20.4.2012.
Issues
Whether the plaintiff proved the oral agreement for sale?
Whether the plaintiff proved his readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract?
Whether the concurrent findings of fact are perverse warranting interference in second appeal?
Submissions/Arguments
Appellant argued that the courts below erred in dismissing the suit and appeal despite evidence of oral agreement and payment of earnest money.
Respondents supported the concurrent findings and argued that no substantial question of law arises.
Ratio Decidendi
In a second appeal under Section 100 CPC, the High Court cannot interfere with concurrent findings of fact unless they are perverse or based on no evidence. The plaintiff failed to prove the oral agreement and his readiness and willingness, and the findings of the courts below are based on proper appreciation of evidence.
Judgment Excerpts
This Second Appeal is filed by the Original Plaintiff/appellant herein, who had filed Regular Civil Suit No.73 of 2007.
The Civil Suit came to be dismissed on 28th March, 2010.
Regular Civil Appeal No.274 of 2010 was filed by the Original Plaintiff before the District Judge, Wardha. The said appeal is also dismissed on 20.4.2012.
Hence, the present appeal is filed by the said Original Plaintiff/appellant against the concurrent findings of both the Courts below.
Procedural History
Plaintiff filed Regular Civil Suit No.73 of 2007 for specific performance. Suit dismissed on 28.3.2010. Plaintiff filed Regular Civil Appeal No.274 of 2010 before District Judge, Wardha, which was dismissed on 20.4.2012. Plaintiff then filed Second Appeal No.400 of 2012 before the Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench, which was dismissed on 29.9.2020.
Acts & Sections
- Specific Relief Act, 1963: Section 16(c)
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Section 100
