Dismissed

Chandulal v. Ramveer and Anr.

Rajasthan HC7 Nov 2022CSA/151/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The appellant challenged the dismissal of a suit for specific performance of an agreement dated 1988. The courts found the agreement void as the defendant was a minor. The High Court held that concurrent findings of fact based on documentary evidence do not raise a substantial question of law under Section 100 CPC and the appeal for a refund of consideration was not maintainable as it was not part

What the court decided

AI extract

Chandulal Vs Ramveer and Anr. — Specific Performance | Rajasthan HC (2022)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 151/2017

¶3

Chandulal S/o Dayaram, aged about 70 years, R/o Baghana, Teh. Kotkasim, Distt. Alwar

¶4

----Appellant-Appellant

¶5

Versus

¶6

Ramveer S/o Jairam, R/o Heli Mandi Todapura, Distt. Gurgaon, Haryana

¶7

Ramkishn S/o Chandu, R/o Baghana, Teh. Kotkasim Distt. Alwar

¶8

--- -Respondent-Defendants

¶9

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Mohit Gupta For Respondent(s) :

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL

¶11

Judgment

¶12

07/11/2022

¶13

The instant civil second appeal under Section 100 CPC has been preferred by appellant-plaintiff assailing the judgment and decree dated 28.11.2016 passed in Civil Regular Appeal No. 6/2010 by the Additional District Judge No.1, Kishangarh Bas, Alwar whereby and whereunder dismissing the appeal and affirming the judgment and decree dated 10.03.2010 passed in Civil Suit No.96/1997 by the Civil Judge (Jr. D.) Kishangarh Bas, Alwar whereunder the plaintiff’s suit for specific performance of agreement dated 30.07.1988 has been dismissed.

¶14

Heard learned counsel for appellant and perused the impugned judgments.

¶15

It has come on record that defendant No.1-Ramveer from whom plaintiff-Chandulal alleges to purchase the suit property

¶16

(2 of 4)

¶17

[CSA-151/2017]

¶18

through agreement dated 30.07.1988, was minor at the time of agreement. Appellant plaintiff, on the basis of voter list claimed that defendant No.1 was major but in counter, defendant No.1 has produced the mark-sheet of Secondary Board (Exh.D/2) wherein his date of birth is indicated as 08.08.1970. Both courts below have treated the agreement in question as void and has observed that defendant No.1 has sold the land in question to defendant No.2-Ramkishn through registered sale deed dated 01.10.1997.

¶19

Counsel for appellant submits that both courts below have not disbelieved on the execution of agreement dated 30.07.1988 and under this agreement, plaintiff paid Rs.19,000/- to defendant No.1-Ramveer by way of cash, therefore if the agreement was not held liable to be specifically enforceable, at least a decree for refund of Rs.19,000/- should have been passed and therefore, impugned judgments and decree are required to be interfered with to this extent.

¶20

There is a fact finding of both courts below that the defendant No.1 was minor at the time of execution of alleged agreement dated 30.07.1988 and such fact finding is based on document of mark-sheet of Secondary Board, therefore, as per Section 11 of Contract Act, 1872 such an agreement is void and on the basis of such agreement, plaintiff cannot claim any relief. It may also be noticed that plaintiff never made any prayer in his suit for refund of Rs.19,000/- nor any such prayer was made before the first appellate court. Such a prayer which do not arise out of pleadings, cannot be entertained at this stage of second appeal. The judgments and decree are just and cannot be said to suffer from any infirmity, irregularity or jurisdiction error.

¶21

(3 of 4)

¶22

[CSA-151/2017]

¶23

The counsel for appellant could not point out any perversity on the part of courts below in recording findings which are based on appreciation/re-appreciation of evidence. In absence of only perversity, or when findings are neither based on surmises and conjunctures nor the same do not give rise to any substantial questions of law. Substantial questions of law are sine-qua-non to exercise the jurisdiction of high court under Section 100 of CPC.

¶24

In case of Damodar Lal Vs. Sohan Devi [(2016)3 SCC 78], the Apex Court held that even if finding of fact is wrong, that by itself will not constitute a question of law. The wrong finding should stem out of a complete misreading of evidence or it should be based only on conjectures and surmises. The safest approach on perversity is the classic approach on the reasonable man’s inference on facts.

¶25

In case of State of Rajasthan v. Shiv Dayal [(2019)8 SCC 637] , the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that a concurrent finding of the fact is binding, unless it is pointed out that it was recorded de hors the pleadings or it was based on no evidence or based on misreading of the material on records and documents. The Hon’ble Court held as under:-

¶26

“16. When any concurrent finding of fact is assailed in second appeal, the appellant is entitled to point out that it is bad in law because it was recorded de hors the pleadings or it was based on no evidence or it was based on misreading of material documentary evidence or it was recorded against any provision of law and lastly, the decision is one which no Judge acting judicially could reasonably have reached. (see observation made by learned Judge Vivian Bose, J. as His Lordship then was a Judge of the Nagpur High Court in Rajeshwar Vishwanath Mamidwar & Ors.

¶27

(4 of 4)

¶28

[CSA-151/2017]

¶29

vs. Dashrath Narayan Chilwelkar & Ors., AIR 1943 Nagpur 117 Para 43). ”

¶30

In the case of C. Doddanrayana Reddy and Ors. Vs. C.

¶31

Jayarama Reddy and ors. [(2020)4 SCC 659] , wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that where two courts have reached a finding which is not based upon any misreading of material documents, nor is recorded against provisions of law and neither can it be said that any Judge acting judiciously and reasonably could not have reached such a finding, then High Court is not required to interfere with such fact findings while exercising its jurisdiction under Section 100 CPC.

¶32

In view of concurrent findings of fact recorded by both courts below, this court is not inclined to interfere with impugned judgments, there is no force in the second appeal as no substantial question of law arises in the matter, hence the same is hereby dismissed. No Costs

¶33

Stay application and any other pending application, if any, stand(s) disposed of.

¶34

(SUDESH BANSAL),J

¶35

TN/11

Chandulal v. Ramveer and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Chandulal v. Ramveer and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Girraj Prasad S/O Phool Chand Vs Smt. Pancham Katta Proprietor Rajasthan Ves Products Industries

Shiv Kumar Vs Seth Jugaldas Ganeriwala Charitable Trus

Chauthu S/O Shri Bhoramal Vs Mangal Chand S/O Late Shri Baluram

Kailash Chand Vs Laxman Singh and Ors.

Smt Gunmala Sogani W/O Shri Bhagchand Sogani Vs Smt Joravar Devi Papdiwal W/O Late Shri Nathu Lal Papdiwal

Smt Maya Devi Vs State and Ors.