Ravi Prakash Pandey v. Smt. Shanti Singh and Others
Case brief
What is this about?
The appellant challenges the first appellate court's judgment refusing specific performance of an agreement to sale, citing lack of recorded reasons, arbitrary allowance of cross-objection, and findings contrary to evidence. The appeal is admitted on substantial questions of law, with an order issued to summon records and maintain status quo.
What the court decided
Court No. - 6
Case :- SECOND APPEAL No. - 156 of 2024
Appellant :- Ravi Prakash Pandey Respondent :- Smt. Shanti Singh And Others Counsel for Appellant :- Vyas Narayan Shukla
Hon'ble Rajnish Kumar,J.
- Heard Shri Vyas Narayan Shukla, learned counsel for the appellant.
- Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant had entered into an agreement for sale of the land in question with the respondent no. 1 on 20.02.2008 on a consideration of Rs.55,000/-, out of which Rs.50,000/- was paid as advance. In pursuance of the said agreement to sale, sale deed was not executed, whereas the appellant was ready and willing for performance of his part of the agreement, therefore, the appellant filed a suit for specific performance of agreement to sale with an alternative plea of refund of advance paid by the appellant. The suit has been partly allowed for refund of Rs.50,000 at the rate of 6 percent interest but the relief for performance of the agreement and sale deed had been rejected on the ground that the appellant has failed to prove his readiness and willingness to perform his part without considering the evidence of the appellant in its correct perspective.
- He further submits that being aggrieved, the appellant filed a civil appeal challenging the judgment and decree dated 13.12.2016/23.12.2016. Learned appellate court framed 3 points for determination, but without recording any finding on the basis of pleadings, evidence and material on record in regard to the points of determination and only recording certain judgments, held that the trial court has decided the issue of readiness and willingness accordingly and on the basis of same, the other points have been decided and cross objection filed by the respondent no. 1 has been allowed without considering the pleadings, evidence and material on record and judgment and decree passed by the trial court has been set aside.
Issues for consideration
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the first appellate court violated Order 41 Rule 31 C.P.C. by not recording reasons for its decision?
Whether the cross-objection was properly allowed without considering pleadings, evidence, and material on record?
Whether the findings on compliance of Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act are against the pleadings, evidence and material?
Parties & counsel
- appellant
Ravi Prakash Pandey
- respondent
Smt. Shanti Singh
Coram
HON'BLE RAJNISH KUMAR, J.
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
- Court
- Allahabad HC
- Decided on
- · August
- Registered
- Case no.
- SAPL/156/2024
All orders in this case
3 orders share this CNR
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
M/S Pan Realtors Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi Thru. Authorized Representative, Mr. Rajneesh Kumar, Sitapur vs Mrs. Neela Chavhan
Vimla Singh and Another vs Ram Lakhan and Others
M/S Pan Realtors Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi Thru. Authorized Representative, Mr. Rajneesh Kumar, Sitapur vs Mrs. Neela Chavhan
Somdhar Shukla vs State of Up and 5 Others