The High Court dismissed the appeal in a second appeal filed against the dismissal of a suit for specific performance. The Court held that the lower courts' finding that the agreement was not proved by cogent evidence was supported by acceptable evidence and did not warrant interference.
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.178 of 2014
====================================================== 1.(i) Draupdi Kuer, wife of Late Chandeshwar Singh (ii) Sangita Kuer @ Sangita Devi, wife of Late Subash Singh (iii) Ashutosh Kr. Singh, Son of Late Subash Singh (iv) Archana Kuer @ Archana Devi, Wife of Late Abhay Singh (v) Prithibiraj Singh (Minor), Son of Late Abhay Singh All resident of Village Ram Sahar, P.S.- Barhara, District- Bhojpur .... .... Appellant/s Versus Rup Sagar Singh, son of Deo Dayal, resident of Village- Ekauna, P.S.Barhara, District- Bhojpur. .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Appellant/s : Mr. Kundan Bahadur Singh, Advocate Mr. Uday Kumar, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. Abbas Haider, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V. NATH ORAL ORDER
6 06-10-2016 Heard Mr. Kundan Bahadur Singh, learned counsel appearing for the appellants. Mr. Abbas Haider, learned counsel for the respondent is also present.
The plaintiff is the appellant in this appeal against the judgment and decree dismissing the suit for Specific Performance of Contract.
The plaintiff filed the suit for Specific Performance of Contract against the defendant. The defendant contested the assertions of the plaintiff and denied the agreement as propounded by the plaintiff. Both the courts below have come to the concurrent finding of fact that the plaintiff has failed to establish the legality and validity of the agreement for sale, which is said to
Patna High Court SA No.178 of 2014 (6) dt.06-10-2016
2/3
have been executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff with regard to the suit land. The suit was dismissed and thereafter the appeal has also been dismissed by the impugned judgment and decree.
Mr. Kundan bahadur Singh, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that both the courts below have not properly considered the evidence adduced by the plaintiff-appellant and, therefore, the findings are vulnerable. It has been contended that the issue with regard to the legality and validity of the agreement for sale was the crucial issue between the parties and, therefore, the interpretation of the said document of agreement for sale may raise a substantial question of law. It has been also pointed out by the learned counsel that the defendant has admitted that he entered into an agreement with the plaintiff with regard to the village land and there was also no reason or explanation on behalf of the defendant as to why the title deed for a suit land was handed over to the plaintiff.
After considering the submissions and perusal of the judgments of both the courts below, it is evident that both the courts below after the scrutiny of evidence have come to the concurrent finding of fact that the agreement, as propounded by the plaintiff for sale of the suit land has not been proved by cogent
Patna High Court SA No.178 of 2014 (6) dt.06-10-2016
3/3
evidence. This finding has been recorded on the basis of the evidence which were acceptable and could have been relied upon. This Court has not been persuaded to find unreasonableness or perversity in any manner in the findings recorded by the appellate court.
The submission raised by the learned counsel for the appellant in this appeal has already been raised and considered by the Courts below. It is well settled by law that possibility of another view on the same set of evidence cannot be substantial question of law to upset the concurrent finding of the trial court.
Ex consequenti, this Court does not find any substantial question of law arising for consideration in this appeal, which is accordingly, dismissed.
(V. Nath, J.)
Uday/-
U
1 issue framed by the court
Whether there exists a substantial question of law warranting interference with the concurrent findings of the courts below dismissing the suit for specific performance.
Draupdi Kuer and others
Rup Sagar Singh
V. Nath
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
