Bombay High Court Allows Second Appeal in Specific Performance Suit — Failure to Prove Rebuttal Issue Leads to Decree. Appellate Court Erred in Overlooking That Defendant's Failure to Prove Issue No. 2 (Rebuttal) Entitled Plaintiff to Decree Based on Documentary Evidence.

High Court: Bombay High Court In Favour of Accused
  • 85
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The plaintiff filed a second appeal against the dismissal of his suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell property. The plaintiff and defendant entered into an agreement on 26-9-1986 for sale of property 'Aradi of Pedem Grande'. The defendant also executed a general power of attorney on 17-10-1986 and an affidavit reiterating she was the sole heir. Later, differences arose and the defendant claimed her sisters had an interest, refusing to execute the sale deed. The plaintiff filed suit for specific performance. The trial court decreed the suit, but the appellate court reversed, holding that the plaintiff failed to prove readiness and willingness. The High Court admitted the appeal on substantial questions of law, including whether the appellate court overlooked that the defendant's failure to prove Issue No. 2 (rebuttal) would entitle the plaintiff to a decree. The High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the appellate judgment, and restored the trial court's decree, directing the defendant to execute the sale deed within two months.

Headnote

A) Specific Performance - Burden of Proof - Rebuttal Issue - Failure to Prove - The Appellate Court erred in overlooking that the defendant's failure to prove Issue No. 2 (rebuttal) entitled the plaintiff to a decree based on documentary evidence, including the agreement of sale, power of attorney, and affidavit. Held that the burden of proof on the defendant was not discharged, and the suit ought to have been decreed. (Paras 1-3)

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the Appellate Court committed illegality in overlooking that failure of the Respondent to prove Issue No. 2 which was in rebuttal would pave way for suit being decreed based on documentary evidence?

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

Appeal allowed. Judgment and decree of the Appellate Court set aside. Judgment and decree of the trial court restored. Defendant to execute sale deed within two months from today. In default, plaintiff entitled to get sale deed executed through court.

Law Points

  • Specific performance
  • burden of proof
  • rebuttal issue
  • documentary evidence
  • failure to prove issue leads to decree
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2005 LawText (BOM) (09) 71

Second Appeal No. 57 of 2000

2005-09-23

N. A. Britto, J.

Mr. Sudin Usgaonkar for Appellant; Respondent ex parte

Shri Shivanath Baburao Walke

Miss Flora D'Souza

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Second appeal against dismissal of suit for specific performance of agreement to sell property.

Remedy Sought

Plaintiff sought specific performance of agreement to sell property and execution of sale deed.

Filing Reason

Defendant refused to execute sale deed claiming her sisters had interest in property.

Previous Decisions

Trial court decreed suit; appellate court reversed and dismissed suit.

Issues

Whether the Appellate Court committed illegality in overlooking that failure of the Respondent to prove Issue No. 2 which was in rebuttal would pave way for suit being decreed based on documentary evidence?

Submissions/Arguments

Appellant argued that defendant failed to prove Issue No. 2 (rebuttal), entitling plaintiff to decree based on documentary evidence.

Ratio Decidendi

The defendant's failure to prove the rebuttal issue (Issue No. 2) meant the plaintiff was entitled to a decree based on documentary evidence, including the agreement of sale, power of attorney, and affidavit.

Judgment Excerpts

Whether the Appellate Court committed illegality in overlooking that failure of the Respondent to prove Issue No. 2 which was in rebuttal would pave way for suit being decreed based on the documentary evidence?

Procedural History

Plaintiff filed Special Civil Suit No. 388/89/A for specific performance. Trial court decreed suit. Defendant appealed to District Court, which reversed and dismissed suit. Plaintiff filed second appeal to High Court.

Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Allows Second Appeal in Specific Performance Suit — Failure to Prove Rebuttal Issue Leads to Decree. Appellate Court Erred in Overlooking That Defendant's Failure to Prove Issue No. 2 (Rebuttal) Entitled Plaintiff to Decree Based ...
Related Judgement
High Court Madras High Court Hears Writ Petition Challenging Land Acquisition Notice for Chennai Metro Station. Petitioner's challenge centered on whether CMRL's show cause notice under Section 3(2) of Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Industrial Purposes Act,...