Case Note & Summary
The appellant, plaintiff in a suit for specific performance of contract, filed a second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, against the judgment and decree dated 07.11.2015 passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge & CJM, Chikkaballapur, in R.A.No.145/2011, which allowed the defendant's appeal and set aside the trial court's decree dated 22.06.2011 in O.S.No.152/2009. The trial court had decreed the suit directing the defendant to execute a registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiff upon receiving the balance sale consideration of Rs.15,000/-. The plaintiff claimed that the suit schedule property was granted to the defendant on 21.07.1994 and that the defendant, being the absolute owner, entered into an agreement of sale with the plaintiff. The Lower Appellate Court reversed the decree, holding that the plaintiff failed to prove that the defendant was the absolute owner of the property at the time of the agreement. The High Court, while admitting the appeal, heard the matter and found that the Lower Appellate Court's judgment was based on proper appreciation of evidence and did not suffer from any perversity. The High Court held that no substantial question of law arose for consideration and dismissed the second appeal, confirming the dismissal of the suit.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Second Appeal - Section 100 CPC - Interference with Concurrent Findings - The High Court in a second appeal cannot interfere with findings of fact unless they are perverse or based on no evidence. The Lower Appellate Court's reversal of the trial court's decree was based on appreciation of evidence and did not raise any substantial question of law. (Paras 1-5) B) Specific Performance - Agreement of Sale - Burden of Proof - The plaintiff failed to prove that the defendant was the absolute owner of the suit property at the time of the agreement. The grant was made to the defendant on 21.07.1994, but the agreement was allegedly executed earlier. The plaintiff did not discharge the burden of proof. (Paras 2-4)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the judgment and decree passed by the Lower Appellate Court reversing the trial court's decree for specific performance suffers from any perversity or illegality warranting interference under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the second appeal, confirming the Lower Appellate Court's judgment and decree dated 07.11.2015 in R.A.No.145/2011, which dismissed the suit for specific performance.
Law Points
- Specific performance
- burden of proof
- concurrent findings of fact
- Section 100 CPC
- interference limited to substantial question of law
