Case Note & Summary
The case involves a Second Appeal filed by the original plaintiffs (appellants) against the dismissal of their suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell immovable property. The appellants claimed that the respondent (since deceased, represented by legal representatives) had agreed to sell certain property to them through two transactions dated 20th June 1963 and 12th April 1965. The Trial Court (Civil Judge, Senior Division, Satara) dismissed the suit, but the Appellate Court (3rd Additional District Judge, Satara) dismissed the appeal, albeit on different reasons. The appellants then filed this Second Appeal, which was admitted on substantial questions of law, primarily whether the lower Appellate Court was right in upsetting the Trial Court's findings regarding the nature of the transactions. The High Court, after hearing arguments, held that the Appellate Court's reversal of the finding on the nature of the transaction was justified as the evidence did not support the appellants' claim of a genuine agreement to sell. The High Court found no perversity in the concurrent findings and dismissed the Second Appeal, upholding the judgments of the courts below.
Headnote
A) Specific Relief Act, 1963 - Section 20 - Specific Performance of Contract - Burden of Proof - The plaintiff must prove the existence of a valid and genuine agreement to sell. In the present case, the Trial Court had found the transactions to be genuine, but the Appellate Court reversed that finding. The High Court held that the Appellate Court was justified in doing so as the evidence did not establish a clear agreement for sale. (Paras 4-5)
B) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Section 100 - Second Appeal - Substantial Question of Law - The High Court's jurisdiction under Section 100 is limited to questions of law. The concurrent findings of fact by the lower courts cannot be interfered with unless perverse. Here, the Appellate Court's reversal of the Trial Court's finding on the nature of transaction was a question of fact, and the High Court found no error. (Paras 4-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the lower Appellate Court was right in upsetting the findings regarding the nature of the transactions dated 20th June 1963 and 12th April 1965?
Final Decision
Second Appeal dismissed. The judgment and order of the lower Appellate Court dated 18th November 1991 in Regular Civil Appeal No.38 of 1984, confirming the Trial Court's decree in Regular Civil Suit No.119 of 1976, is upheld.
Law Points
- Specific performance
- burden of proof
- concurrent findings
- substantial question of law
- agreement to sell
- nature of transaction
Case Details
2018 LawText (BOM) (06) 87
Second Appeal No.37 of 1993
Dr. Shalini Phansalkar-Joshi, J.
Mr. R.A. Thorat, Senior Counsel, a/w. Mr. Pradeep J. Thorat, for the Appellants; Mr. Vishwanath S. Talkute for Respondent Nos.2 to 6
Parasharam Sakharam Dhumal and Shankar Sakharam Dhumal
Shamrao Mahadeo Dhumal (Since Deceased) Through LRs: Hirabai Shamrao Dhumal, Sharadabai Baban Sawant, Suman Mansing Yadav, Kamal Uttam Tupe, Pushpa Hanmant Gholap, Savitra Shamrao Dhumal (Since Deceased) Through LRs: Chandrakant Yashwant Gaikwad, Snehal Chandrakant Gaikwad, Supriya Chandrakant Gaikwad, Raju Shamrao Dhumal (Minor), Banubai Kushaba Sawant, Rangubai Sakharam Dhumal (Abated), Tai w/of Hariba Kalbhor (Abated), Balutai Sakharam Dhumal, Shakhntala Saknaram Dhumal
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Civil suit for specific performance of contract
Remedy Sought
Appellants (original plaintiffs) sought specific performance of an agreement to sell immovable property
Filing Reason
Appellants claimed that the respondent had agreed to sell property to them through transactions dated 20th June 1963 and 12th April 1965, but the respondent failed to perform the contract
Previous Decisions
Trial Court dismissed the suit; First Appellate Court dismissed the appeal confirming the trial court's decree but on different reasons
Issues
Whether the lower Appellate Court was right in upsetting the findings regarding the nature of the transactions dated 20th June 1963 and 12th April 1965?
Submissions/Arguments
Appellants argued that the Trial Court had given findings that the transactions were genuine, and the Appellate Court erred in reversing that finding.
Respondents supported the Appellate Court's decision that the transactions were not proved as agreements to sell.
Ratio Decidendi
The High Court held that the lower Appellate Court was justified in reversing the Trial Court's finding on the nature of the transactions because the evidence did not establish a genuine agreement to sell. The concurrent findings of fact, being not perverse, cannot be interfered with in a Second Appeal under Section 100 CPC.
Judgment Excerpts
Whether in an Appeal preferred by the Appellant-Plaintiff, the lower Appellate Court was right in upsetting the findings regarding the nature of the transactions dated 20th June 1963 and 12th April 1965 ?
Procedural History
The appellants filed Regular Civil Suit No.119 of 1976 for specific performance. The Trial Court dismissed the suit. The appellants appealed to the 3rd Additional District Judge, Satara in Regular Civil Appeal No.38 of 1984, which was dismissed on 18th November 1991. The appellants then filed the present Second Appeal No.37 of 1993 in the Bombay High Court, which was admitted on substantial questions of law and dismissed on 8th June 2018.
Acts & Sections
- Specific Relief Act, 1963: Section 20
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Section 100
