Case Note & Summary
The case involves a second appeal filed by the defendants challenging concurrent judgments and decrees passed for specific performance of an agreement to sell the suit property. The plaintiff (now represented by legal heirs) had filed a suit for specific performance of an oral agreement to sell agricultural land. The Trial Court decreed the suit, directing defendant no.1 to execute a sale deed and hand over possession. The first appeal by the defendants was dismissed, confirming the decree. The second appeal was admitted on questions of law, primarily whether the courts were justified in decreeing the suit based on an oral agreement when there was a written document dated 31.12.1973 between the parties that did not refer to the alleged oral agreement. The High Court examined the evidence and found that the lower courts had properly appreciated the evidence, including the testimony of witnesses and documents, to conclude that the oral agreement was proved. The court held that the concurrent findings of fact were not perverse and did not warrant interference under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The appeal was dismissed, and the decree for specific performance was upheld.
Headnote
A) Specific Relief Act, 1963 - Section 20 - Specific Performance of Oral Agreement - Concurrent Findings - The suit was for specific performance of an oral agreement to sell suit property. Both courts decreed the suit based on evidence of oral agreement and part performance. The High Court in second appeal refused to interfere with concurrent findings of fact, holding that they were not perverse and were based on proper appreciation of evidence. (Paras 1-30)
B) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Section 100 - Second Appeal - Interference with Concurrent Findings - The High Court held that in a second appeal, the court cannot interfere with concurrent findings of fact unless they are shown to be perverse or based on no evidence. The findings of the lower courts regarding the existence of the oral agreement and readiness and willingness of the plaintiff were upheld. (Paras 2-30)
C) Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 91 - Oral Agreement - Written Document - The contention that the oral agreement could not be proved in view of a subsequent written document was rejected. The written document dated 31.12.1973 did not supersede the earlier oral agreement, and the oral agreement was independently proved. (Paras 10-20)
Issue of Consideration
Whether both the Courts were justified in decreeing the suit filed on the basis of oral agreement, when there was a written document dated 31.12.1973 between the plaintiff and defendant no.1, and the said written document does not refer to the earlier alleged oral agreement.
Final Decision
The second appeal is dismissed. The concurrent judgments and decrees for specific performance are upheld.
Law Points
- Specific performance of oral agreement
- Concurrent findings of fact
- Section 100 CPC
- Perversity
- Burden of proof
- Readiness and willingness
Case Details
Second Appeal No. 344 of 1992
Mr. S.M. Gorwadkar, Senior Advocate a/w. Mr. Sujay H. Gangal a/w. Mr. Swaraj M. Savant for Appellants; Ms. Rukmini Khairnar i/b. Mr. Pramod Joshi for Respondents
Fakira Rambhau Shewale Since deceased through his legal heirs and others
Vasant Narayan Rane Since deceased through his legal heirs and others
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Second appeal against concurrent judgments and decrees for specific performance of an agreement to sell suit property.
Remedy Sought
Appellants (defendants) sought to set aside the decree for specific performance and dismissal of the suit.
Filing Reason
The appellants challenged the concurrent findings of fact and law by the Trial Court and First Appellate Court decreeing the suit for specific performance of an oral agreement to sell.
Previous Decisions
Trial Court decreed the suit directing defendant no.1 to execute sale deed and hand over possession. First Appellate Court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the decree.
Issues
Whether both the Courts were justified in decreeing the suit filed on the basis of oral agreement, when there was a written document dated 31.12.1973 between the plaintiff and defendant no.1, and the said written document does not refer to the earlier alleged oral agreement.
Submissions/Arguments
Appellants argued that the oral agreement could not be proved in view of the written document dated 31.12.1973, and that the concurrent findings were perverse.
Respondents argued that the oral agreement was independently proved and that the concurrent findings of fact were binding in second appeal.
Ratio Decidendi
In a second appeal under Section 100 of CPC, the High Court cannot interfere with concurrent findings of fact unless they are shown to be perverse or based on no evidence. The oral agreement for sale of immovable property can be proved by evidence, and the subsequent written document does not automatically supersede the earlier oral agreement unless it is shown to be a novation or substitution.
Judgment Excerpts
This second appeal is preferred by the defendants to challenge the concurrent judgments and decrees passed for specific performance of the agreement to sell the suit property.
Whether both the Courts were justified in decreeing the suit filed on the basis of oral agreement, when admittedly there was a written document about the suit property, dated 31.12.1973, between the Plaintiff and the Defendant No.1, and the said Written document do not refer to earlier alleged oral agreement.
Procedural History
The plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance of an oral agreement to sell. The Trial Court decreed the suit. The defendants filed a first appeal, which was dismissed. The defendants then filed the present second appeal, which was admitted on 29 July 1992 on the questions of law framed in grounds (C), (F) and (G).
Acts & Sections
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Section 100
- Specific Relief Act, 1963: Section 20
- Indian Evidence Act, 1872: Section 91
