Case Note & Summary
The present second appeal was filed by the original defendant, Ram @ Rameshwar Balasaheb Kopner, challenging the judgment and decree passed by the learned Adhoc District Judge-1, Ahmedpur, Dist. Latur in Regular Civil Appeal No.55/2015 dated 02.11.2018. The said appeal was filed challenging the judgment and decree passed in R.C.S. No.268/2017 passed by Joint Civil Judge Junior Division, Ahmedpur, Dist. Latur on 18.08.2015. The original plaintiff, Vithal Baburao Khandekar, had filed a suit claiming that he sold his land to the defendant for a consideration of Rs.3,45,000, out of which Rs.1,50,000 was paid at the time of sale deed on 22.03.2012, and the defendant agreed to pay the remaining Rs.1,95,000 by December 2012. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant executed a separate agreement on a stamp paper of Rs.100 promising to pay the balance amount. The defendant denied the agreement and claimed that the sale consideration was only Rs.1,50,000 and that he had paid the full amount. The Trial Court dismissed the suit, but the First Appellate Court reversed the judgment and decreed the suit. The High Court, in second appeal, found that the First Appellate Court had not properly appreciated the evidence regarding the execution of the agreement to pay balance consideration. The High Court set aside the judgment of the First Appellate Court and remanded the matter back to the First Appellate Court for fresh consideration, directing it to decide the appeal afresh after giving opportunity to both parties to lead evidence on the issue of the agreement to pay balance consideration.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Second Appeal - Section 100 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Interference with concurrent findings - The High Court in second appeal can interfere if the findings of fact are perverse or based on no evidence. In the present case, the First Appellate Court reversed the Trial Court's dismissal of the suit, but the High Court found that the First Appellate Court had not properly appreciated the evidence regarding the agreement to pay balance consideration. The High Court set aside the judgment and remanded the matter for fresh consideration. (Paras 1-10) B) Contract Law - Sale of Immovable Property - Agreement to Pay Balance Consideration - Evidence Act, 1872 - Burden of proof - The plaintiff claimed that the defendant agreed to pay Rs.1,95,000 as balance consideration, but the defendant denied any such agreement. The Trial Court dismissed the suit, but the First Appellate Court reversed. The High Court found that the First Appellate Court had not properly considered the evidence and remanded the matter. (Paras 2-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the First Appellate Court was justified in reversing the Trial Court's judgment and decree without properly appreciating the evidence on record, particularly regarding the execution of an agreement to pay balance consideration.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the second appeal, set aside the judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court, and remanded the matter back to the First Appellate Court for fresh consideration. The First Appellate Court was directed to decide the appeal afresh after giving opportunity to both parties to lead evidence on the issue of the agreement to pay balance consideration.
Law Points
- Burden of proof
- Agreement of sale
- Balance consideration
- Concurrent findings
- Interference in second appeal
- Section 100 CPC
