Case Note & Summary
The appellants, legal representatives of the original defendant in O.S. No. 216/2005, challenged the judgment and decree dated 18.7.2013 passed in R.A. No. 4/2011 by the II Additional Sessions Judge, Belgaum, which confirmed the trial court's decree dated 18.11.2010 decreeing the suit for specific performance of contract. The respondent/plaintiff had sought specific performance of an agreement of sale dated 21.4.2002 executed by the original defendant. The plaintiff adduced evidence as PW1. Both the trial court and the first appellate court concurrently found that the plaintiff had proved the agreement and was ready and willing to perform his part. The appellants, in this second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, contended that the findings were perverse. The High Court, after hearing the parties, held that the concurrent findings of fact were not shown to be perverse or based on no evidence. The court reiterated the limited scope of interference under Section 100 CPC, which is confined to substantial questions of law. As no substantial question of law arose, the appeal was dismissed. The judgment and decree of the lower courts were confirmed.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Second Appeal - Section 100 CPC - Interference with Concurrent Findings of Fact - The High Court in a second appeal under Section 100 CPC cannot interfere with concurrent findings of fact unless they are shown to be perverse or based on no evidence. The appellants, legal representatives of the defendant, failed to demonstrate any perversity in the findings of the trial court and first appellate court that the plaintiff had proved the agreement of sale dated 21.4.2002 and was ready and willing to perform his part. (Paras 1-3) B) Specific Performance - Agreement of Sale - Proof of Execution - The plaintiff adduced evidence as PW1 and proved the execution of the agreement of sale dated 21.4.2002 by the original defendant. The courts below concurrently held that the plaintiff was entitled to specific performance. The High Court found no reason to interfere. (Paras 1-3)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 can interfere with concurrent findings of fact recorded by the trial court and first appellate court in a suit for specific performance of contract.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the second appeal, confirming the judgment and decree of the first appellate court and trial court.
Law Points
- Specific performance
- concurrent findings of fact
- Section 100 CPC
- interference limited to substantial question of law
- no perversity
