Case Note & Summary
The case involves a second appeal filed by Sadashiv Ramchandra Arve (original defendant no.3) against the judgment and decree dated 2nd December 1992 passed by the Additional District Judge, Sangli, which dismissed his appeal and confirmed the decree for specific performance passed by the trial court. The original plaintiff, Kashinath Virupax Hingmire (since deceased, represented by legal heirs), had filed Special Civil Suit No.26 of 1983 seeking specific performance of an agreement to sell dated 1st October 1974 executed by Ramchandra Hari Arve (the original owner) in respect of suit properties Gat Nos. 817, 820 and 828 situated at Village Boragaon, Taluka Tasgaon, District Sangli. The original owner had no issues from his marriage with defendant no.2. The plaintiff alleged that the owner agreed to sell the properties for Rs. 10,000 and received an advance of Rs. 2,000. The owner died before execution of the sale deed. The appellant, who purchased the properties from the owner's widow (defendant no.2) on 2nd May 1983, claimed to be a bona fide purchaser for value without notice. The trial court decreed the suit for specific performance, and the first appellate court confirmed it. In the second appeal, the appellant contended that the courts below erred in holding that he had notice of the prior agreement. The High Court examined the evidence and found that the appellant failed to prove that he was a bona fide purchaser without notice. The court noted that the appellant did not examine the attesting witnesses to the sale deed in his favour and that the sale deed itself mentioned that the property was subject to the agreement. The High Court held that no substantial question of law arose and dismissed the appeal, confirming the decree for specific performance.
Headnote
A) Specific Relief Act, 1963 - Section 19(b) - Bona fide purchaser for value without notice - Subsequent purchaser - The appellant, who purchased the suit property after the agreement to sell in favour of the plaintiff, claimed protection as a bona fide purchaser for value without notice. The courts below concurrently found that the appellant had notice of the prior agreement. The High Court held that no substantial question of law arises as the findings are based on appreciation of evidence and are not perverse. (Paras 1-10) B) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Section 100 - Second appeal - Substantial question of law - The High Court reiterated that the scope of second appeal is limited to substantial questions of law. Concurrent findings of fact cannot be interfered with unless shown to be perverse or based on no evidence. The appellant failed to demonstrate any such error. (Paras 1-10) C) Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 114 - Illustration (g) - Burden of proof - The burden to prove that the subsequent purchaser had no notice of the prior agreement lies on the person claiming protection under Section 19(b) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. The appellant did not discharge this burden. (Paras 5-8)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 raises any substantial question of law, particularly regarding the validity of the agreement to sell and the appellant's claim as a bona fide purchaser for value without notice.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the second appeal with no order as to costs, confirming the decree for specific performance passed by the trial court and affirmed by the first appellate court.
Law Points
- Specific performance
- Agreement to sell
- Subsequent purchaser
- Notice
- Section 19(b) Specific Relief Act
- 1963
- Section 100 CPC
- Concurrent findings
- Substantial question of law
