Case Note & Summary
The case involves two second appeals arising from a property dispute. The appellants, who are the wife, daughters, and son of Ramesh Krushnarao Deshmukh, challenged a sale deed executed by Ramesh in favor of Amartya, a minor represented by his grandfather Haribhau. The sale was for agricultural land admeasuring 2 H 06 R, out of which 1 H 21 R was sold via a sale deed after receiving part consideration. The appellants claimed the property was ancestral and coparcenary, and that Ramesh had no authority to alienate it. They sent a legal notice demanding cancellation. The trial court and first appellate court concurrently held that the property was self-acquired of Ramesh, the sale was valid, and the appellants had no right to challenge it. The High Court, in second appeal, framed substantial questions of law regarding the nature of the property and the validity of the concurrent findings. After hearing arguments, the court held that the findings of fact were based on evidence and not perverse, and that the appellants failed to prove the property was ancestral. The court also noted that the appellants were not parties to the agreement and had no locus standi. The second appeals were dismissed, upholding the sale deed and confirming the purchaser's possession.
Headnote
A) Property Law - Ancestral vs Self-Acquired Property - Burden of Proof - The appellants claimed the property was ancestral and coparcenary, but failed to prove that it was not self-acquired. The courts below concurrently held that the property was self-acquired of Ramesh, and the High Court found no perversity in such findings. (Paras 10-12) B) Civil Procedure - Second Appeal - Interference with Concurrent Findings - Under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the High Court cannot interfere with concurrent findings of fact unless they are perverse or based on no evidence. The findings here were based on evidence and not perverse. (Paras 13-14) C) Contract Law - Agreement to Sell - Specific Performance - The agreement to sell dated 11/11/2010 and subsequent sale deed were validly executed, consideration was paid, and possession was delivered. The purchaser was entitled to specific performance. (Paras 3-6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the sale deed executed by Ramesh Krushnarao Deshmukh in favor of Amartya was valid and binding, and whether the property was ancestral or self-acquired, and whether the appellants had any right to challenge the sale.
Final Decision
Both second appeals are dismissed. The concurrent findings of the courts below are upheld. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Specific performance
- Agreement to sell
- Sale deed
- Ancestral property
- Self-acquired property
- Coparcenary rights
- Concurrent findings of fact
- Substantial question of law
- Section 100 CPC
