Case Note & Summary
The case involves a second appeal filed by the original defendant, Smt. Mumtajbi, against the judgment of the first Appellate Court which decreed a suit for specific performance of contract in favor of the original plaintiff, Rahimtulla. The suit was originally dismissed by the trial Court. The plaintiff alleged an agreement dated 15.8.1986 for sale of the defendant's house. The defendant, a purdanashin Muslim woman, contended that it was highly improbable for her to enter into an agreement with the plaintiff, who had been convicted for the murder of her husband. The first Appellate Court allowed the appeal and decreed the suit, leading to the present second appeal. The High Court admitted the appeal on the substantial question of law whether the first Appellate Court erred in holding that the agreement was duly proved. The appellant argued that the respondent had murdered her husband and was sentenced to life imprisonment, making it impossible for her to contract with him. She also submitted that being a purdanashin Muslim woman, there was no possibility of privity of contract. The respondents argued that the plaintiff had led evidence and the defendant did not depose, and her admission in Exh.18 was binding. The High Court, after considering the submissions, held that the first Appellate Court had erred in decreeing the suit without considering the defendant's status as a purdanashin woman and the improbability of the agreement. The court allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment of the first Appellate Court, and restored the trial Court's dismissal of the suit.
Headnote
A) Specific Performance - Proof of Agreement - Purdanashin Woman - The first Appellate Court erred in decreeing suit for specific performance without considering the defendant's status as a purdanashin Muslim woman and the improbability of her entering into an agreement with the murderer of her husband - Held that the agreement was not duly proved and the appeal was allowed (Paras 2-5).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the first Appellate Court committed an error in holding that the agreement dated 15.8.1986 has been duly proved.
Final Decision
The appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment and order passed by the first Appellate Court is set aside. The judgment and order passed by the trial Court dismissing the suit is restored.
Law Points
- Specific performance of contract
- Burden of proof
- Purdanashin woman
- Agreement to sell
- Proof of agreement
- Section 16(c) Specific Relief Act
- 1963
- Section 101 Evidence Act
- 1872
Case Details
2010 LawText (BOM) (07) 170
Second Appeal No. 29 / 1998
Mr S.D. Deshpande for appellant, Mr. Masood Shareef for LRs 1 to 4
Smt. Mumtajbi wd/o Sheikh Amir
Rahimtulla s/o Sheikh Rasul (Dead: Through LRs) - 1) Shri Sheikh Babbu s/o Rahimtulla, 2) Shri Abdulla s/o Rahimtulla, 3) Shri Gaffar s/o Rahimtulla, 4) Shri Ayub s/o Rahimtulla
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Second appeal against decree for specific performance of contract
Remedy Sought
Appellant sought to set aside the first Appellate Court's decree for specific performance and restore trial Court's dismissal of suit
Filing Reason
Appellant challenged the first Appellate Court's finding that the agreement dated 15.8.1986 was duly proved
Previous Decisions
Trial Court dismissed the suit for specific performance; first Appellate Court allowed appeal and decreed the suit
Issues
Whether the first Appellate Court committed an error in holding that the agreement dated 15.8.1986 has been duly proved
Submissions/Arguments
Appellant submitted that respondent had murdered her husband and was sentenced to life imprisonment, making it impossible for her to enter into an agreement with him
Appellant submitted that being a purdanashin Muslim woman, there was no possibility of privity of contract
Respondents submitted that plaintiff had led evidence and defendant did not depose, and her admission in Exh.18 was binding
Ratio Decidendi
The first Appellate Court erred in decreeing the suit for specific performance without considering the defendant's status as a purdanashin Muslim woman and the improbability of her entering into an agreement with the murderer of her husband. The agreement was not duly proved.
Judgment Excerpts
whether the first Appellate Court committed an error in holding that the agreement dated 15.8.1986 has been duly proved.
it was highly impossible on the part of the appellant to enter into an agreement to sell her house to a murderer of her husband.
the appellant being a purdanashin Muslim woman, there was no possibility of talk and privity of contract between her and deceased respondent Rahimatullah
Procedural History
Regular Civil Suit No.1646/1989 was dismissed by 20th Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Nagpur on 10.2.1994. The plaintiff filed Regular Civil Appeal No.202/1994 which was allowed by 8th Additional District Judge, Nagpur, decreeing the suit. The defendant filed Second Appeal No.29/1998 in the High Court.
Acts & Sections
- Specific Relief Act, 1963: Section 16(c)
- Indian Evidence Act, 1872: Section 101
