Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Marigouda Chanabasappa Marigoudar, was the defendant in a suit for specific performance of contract filed by the respondents (plaintiffs) in O.S.No.1/1999 before the Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.), Bailhongal. The plaintiffs claimed that the defendant had executed an agreement of sale on 20-05-1996 agreeing to sell 4 acres 20 guntas of land in R.S.No.102/1 of Madanbhavi for a total consideration of Rs.1,20,000/-, and that they had paid Rs.1,00,000/- as advance. The defendant failed to execute the sale deed despite repeated demands. The trial court decreed the suit on 10-04-2001, directing specific performance. The defendant appealed to the Principal District Judge, Belgaum in R.A.No.18/2008, which was dismissed on 21-07-2009. The defendant then filed the present second appeal under Section 100 CPC. The High Court held that the courts below had concurrently found that the agreement was proved by the plaintiffs by examining themselves and the scribe, and that the defendant had admitted his signature. The defendant did not rebut the presumption under Section 114 of the Evidence Act. The High Court found no perversity or substantial question of law and dismissed the appeal.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Second Appeal - Section 100 CPC - Substantial Question of Law - The High Court cannot interfere with concurrent findings of fact unless they are perverse or based on no evidence. The appellant failed to demonstrate any substantial question of law. (Paras 1-3) B) Contract Law - Specific Performance - Agreement of Sale - Proof - The plaintiff must prove the agreement by preponderance of probabilities. In this case, the plaintiff examined himself and the scribe, and the defendant admitted his signature on the agreement. The courts below rightly held that the agreement was proved. (Paras 4-6) C) Evidence Act - Presumption - Section 114 - The court may presume that a document duly executed and attested is genuine. The defendant did not rebut this presumption. (Para 5) D) Civil Procedure - Regular Appeal - Section 96 CPC - The first appellate court is the final court of fact. Its findings cannot be re-appreciated in second appeal unless perverse. (Para 2)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the judgment and decree passed by the courts below granting specific performance of contract is perverse or suffers from any substantial question of law warranting interference under Section 100 of CPC.
Final Decision
Appeal dismissed. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Specific performance
- Agreement of sale
- Concurrent findings of fact
- Section 100 CPC
- Section 114 Evidence Act
- Preponderance of probabilities
