High Court dismissed second appeals. A common order addressed two civil appeals. The court held that lower courts' findings regarding plaintiff readiness to pay loan amount and validity of service of notice were supported by evidence and not perverse.
Second appeals dismissed; lower court findings and decrees affirmed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Second Appeal No.155 of 2010
======================================================
Defendants Appellant in the Court below .... Appellants Versus
====================================================== with Second Appeal No.156 of 2010 ======================================================
Singhnan P.S. Rajoun District- Banka.
Defendants Appellant in the Court below .... Appellants Versus
No.2 and 3 both sons of late Naresh Prasad Singh all residents of village Kamalpur P.S. Sahkund District Bhagalpur.
Plaintiffs...Respondents in the Court below
.... .... Respondents
====================================================== Appearance : (In SA No.155 of 2010) For the Appellant/s : Mr. A.C.Jha For the Respondent/s : (In SA No.156 of 2010) For the Appellant/s : Mr. A.C.Jha For the Respondent/s :
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHAKRADHARI
SHARAN SINGH
ORAL ORDER
identical in nature and are between the same parties, the same
Patna High Court SA No.155 of 2010 (4) dt.06-03-2013
2 / 8
have been heard together and are being disposed of by a common order.
Patna High Court SA No.155 of 2010 (4) dt.06-03-2013
3 / 8
execute sale deed but the defendants put it off. Further case is that they variously approached the defendants for the purpose of execution of the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff but it could not materialize. Finally the plaintiffs sent a pleader‟s notice to the defendants in this regard on 20.10.1992 which was received by the defendants on 22.10.1992, the defendants did not execute any sale deed. Two separate suits with respect to the two sale deeds dated 23.10.1986 were instituted by the plaintiffs with the plea as abovementioned, vide title suit No. 96 of 1992 and 97 of 1992 in the file of the Court of Munsif, Banka.
“V. Are the plaintiffs ready and willing to perform
their part of contract?”
Patna High Court SA No.155 of 2010 (4) dt.06-03-2013
4 / 8
evaluation and assessment of evidence and material on record, learned Trial Court in both the suits, separately came to the finding that the respondents / plaintiffs had tendered the amount of rupees fifteen thousand to the defendants and „were / are‟ ready and willing to pay the amount to the defendants within the stipulated period and after that learned Trial Court came to further finding that the agreement dated 23.10.1986 were apparently to reconvey the suit land for rupees fifteen thousand and also came to the finding on consideration of the said agreement that it could not be said to be a mortgage deed. Learned Trial Court in the two separate judgments in both the suits held the plaintiffs / respondents to be entitled to a decree for specific performance of contract and, accordingly, a decree was passed.
Patna High Court SA No.155 of 2010 (4) dt.06-03-2013
5 / 8
A. “The point for consideration is whether the plaintiffs/ respondents were ready and willing to get the sale deed land executed in his favour after payment of agreed consideration money within stipulated period?
B. Whether the contract of purchase permissible under law?”
Patna High Court SA No.155 of 2010 (4) dt.06-03-2013
6 / 8
plaintiffs proved before the Courts below that they were willing to perform their part of contract i.e., to pay the consideration amount of rupees fifteen thousand with respect to each agreement. He submits that the respondents having not paid or tendered the amount within stipulated time, it was wrong for the Trial Court to maintain the suit. He further submits that over and above the oral evidence, there was no other evidence on record to support the plaintiffs‟ case that they were ready and willing to pay the consideration money. He has submitted that the appeal involves following substantial questions of law in both the appeals:-
III. Whether the courts below in absence of any documents i.e. acknowledgment of certificate granted by the postal department acted illegally with material irregularity in accepting the submission of the plaintiffs-respondents that the
Patna High Court SA No.155 of 2010 (4) dt.06-03-2013
7 / 8
pleader‟s notice was dispatched on 20.10.1992 which was received by the defendants-appellants on 22.10.92?
IV. Whether the court of appeal below committed a serious error of record in holding that the property was mere a security for loan?”
Patna High Court SA No.155 of 2010 (4) dt.06-03-2013
8 / 8
only when such findings are found to be perverse, contrary to the evidence on record or without any evidence.
(Chakradhari Sharan Singh, J.)
Saif/-
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the courts below acted illegally in holding the suits maintainable despite the appellants' claim that loan amount was not paid within stipulated time under agreement for reconveyance.
Whether the absence of documentary acknowledgment of notice warrants setting aside lower courts' findings that notice was validly served.
Whether the lower court erred in holding the suit property constituted mere security for a loan rather than a mortgage based on unsupported allegations.
Devendra Prasad Verma
Ravindra Prasad Verma
Kumari Deep Mala
Smt. Janki Devi
Anil Kumar Singh
Binod Kumar Singh
Chakradhari
Sharan Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
