Case Note & Summary
The appellants (plaintiffs) filed a second appeal challenging the decree of the District Judge-5, Pune, which set aside the trial court's decree in their favour. The suit land was originally owned by Dattu Narayan Barmukh, father of plaintiff no.1. On 21.02.1980, Dattu and the plaintiffs executed a registered sale deed in favour of the defendant for Rs.6,000. The plaintiffs claimed that on 29.06.1986, they repaid the amount and the defendant agreed to reconvey the land, but failed to do so. They filed Regular Civil Suit No.168 of 2002 for specific performance of the agreement to reconvey. The trial court decreed the suit, but the appellate court reversed it. In second appeal, the High Court examined whether the plaintiffs proved the agreement and whether the suit was within limitation. The court noted that the attesting witness to the agreement turned hostile and no other evidence was led. The court also found that the suit was filed in 2002, beyond three years from the date of the agreement (29.06.1986) or from any refusal. The High Court held that the lower appellate court's findings were based on evidence and no substantial question of law arose. The second appeal was dismissed, and the decree of the appellate court was upheld.
Headnote
A) Specific Performance - Agreement to Reconvey - Burden of Proof - The plaintiffs failed to prove the execution and validity of the agreement to reconvey dated 29.06.1986, as the attesting witness turned hostile and no independent evidence was led. The court held that the plaintiffs did not discharge the burden of proof. (Paras 10-12) B) Limitation - Suit for Specific Performance - Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963 - The suit was filed in 2002, more than three years from the date fixed for performance (29.06.1986) or from notice of refusal. The court held that the suit was barred by limitation. (Paras 13-15) C) Second Appeal - Interference with Concurrent Findings - Section 100 CPC - The High Court declined to interfere with concurrent findings of fact by the lower appellate court, as no substantial question of law arose. (Paras 16-18)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the plaintiffs proved the agreement to reconvey dated 29.06.1986 and whether the suit for specific performance was within limitation.
Final Decision
The second appeal is dismissed. The decree dated 06.03.2013 passed by the District Judge-5, Pune in Civil Appeal No. 520 of 2011 is confirmed. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Specific performance
- agreement to reconvey
- burden of proof
- limitation
- concurrent findings of fact
- second appeal under Section 100 CPC
