Case Note & Summary
The present second appeal was filed by the original defendant, Ram @ Rameshwar Balasaheb Kopner, challenging the judgment and decree of the Adhoc District Judge-1, Ahmedpur, in Regular Civil Appeal No.55/2015 dated 02.11.2018, which had dismissed the appeal and confirmed the trial court's decree. The respondent-original plaintiff, Vithal Baburao Khandekar, had filed a suit for recovery of Rs.1,95,000/- being the balance sale consideration for the sale of his land to the defendant. The plaintiff alleged that the sale deed was executed on 22.03.2012 for a total consideration of Rs.3,45,000/-, out of which Rs.1,50,000/- was paid at the time of execution, and the defendant executed a separate agreement on a stamp paper of Rs.100/- promising to pay the balance amount of Rs.1,95,000/- by December 2012. The defendant denied the agreement and claimed that the sale consideration was only Rs.1,50,000/-. The trial court dismissed the suit, and the first appellate court confirmed the dismissal. The High Court admitted the second appeal on the substantial question of law whether the courts below had properly appreciated the evidence. The High Court found that the lower courts had not properly considered the agreement executed on stamp paper and the surrounding circumstances. The High Court set aside the concurrent findings and remanded the matter to the trial court for fresh consideration, directing the trial court to decide the suit afresh after giving both parties an opportunity to lead additional evidence, if any, and to decide the suit in accordance with law within six months.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Second Appeal - Substantial Question of Law - Section 100 CPC - Interference with concurrent findings - The High Court can interfere with concurrent findings of fact if the courts below have failed to consider material evidence or have misread the evidence. In this case, the trial court and first appellate court dismissed the plaintiff's suit for recovery of balance consideration, but the High Court found that the lower courts had not properly appreciated the evidence, particularly the agreement executed on stamp paper. Held that the matter requires fresh consideration (Paras 1-10).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court can interfere with concurrent findings of fact in a second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, when the courts below have failed to properly appreciate the evidence regarding the agreement to pay the balance sale consideration.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the second appeal, set aside the judgments and decrees of both the trial court and the first appellate court, and remanded the matter to the trial court for fresh consideration. The trial court was directed to decide the suit afresh after giving both parties an opportunity to lead additional evidence, if any, and to decide the suit in accordance with law within six months from the date of the order.
Law Points
- Second appeal
- substantial question of law
- concurrent findings
- interference by High Court
- agreement to pay balance consideration
- burden of proof
- appreciation of evidence
