Case Note & Summary
The present second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, arises from a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sale and permanent injunction filed by the plaintiffs (appellants) against the defendants (respondents) concerning agricultural lands. The plaintiffs claimed that on 22.05.2000, the defendants executed separate agreements to sell the suit lands for a total consideration of Rs.6,18,254/-, and possession was handed over. The lands were new tenure, and the defendants were required to convert them to old tenure before executing sale deeds. The plaintiffs alleged readiness and willingness but claimed the defendants failed to convert the lands and attempted to disturb possession. The defendants denied execution of the agreements and contended that the plaintiffs took advantage of their poor financial condition to illegally possess the lands. They also filed a counterclaim for possession. The trial court dismissed both the suit and the counterclaim. The first appellate court confirmed the dismissal. In the second appeal, the High Court framed a substantial question of law regarding whether the concurrent findings were perverse. The court noted that the plaintiffs failed to prove the execution of the agreements and their readiness and willingness. The defendants had denied execution, and the plaintiffs did not examine any independent witness or produce cogent evidence. The trial court and appellate court had concurrently found against the plaintiffs. The High Court held that no substantial question of law arose, as the findings were based on evidence and not perverse. The appeal was dismissed, and the concurrent judgments were upheld.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Second Appeal - Section 100 CPC - Substantial Question of Law - Concurrent findings of fact cannot be interfered with in second appeal unless shown to be perverse or based on no evidence - The court held that the appellant failed to demonstrate any perversity or error of law in the concurrent findings (Paras 1-15). B) Specific Performance - Agreement to Sale - Readiness and Willingness - Section 16(c) Specific Relief Act, 1963 - Plaintiff must prove continuous readiness and willingness to perform his part of contract - The court held that the plaintiff failed to adduce sufficient evidence to show readiness and willingness, and the denial of execution by defendants was not rebutted (Paras 3-10). C) Evidence - Burden of Proof - Execution of Document - The onus lies on the plaintiff to prove the execution of the agreement to sale - The court held that the plaintiff did not discharge this burden, and the concurrent findings of fact were based on proper appreciation of evidence (Paras 5-12).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the concurrent findings of the trial court and first appellate court dismissing the suit for specific performance suffer from any perversity or raise substantial questions of law warranting interference under Section 100 CPC.
Final Decision
The second appeal is dismissed. The concurrent judgments and decrees of the trial court and first appellate court are upheld. No order as to costs. Civil application, if any, stands disposed of.
Law Points
- Second appeal under Section 100 CPC limited to substantial questions of law
- concurrent findings of fact not interfered with unless perverse
- readiness and willingness essential for specific performance
- burden of proof on plaintiff to prove agreement and readiness.
