Dismissed

Badri Thr Lrs and Ors. v. Lalit Kishor and Ors.

Rajasthan HC3 Nov 2022CSA/17/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court dismissed five connected second appeals in a suit for specific performance. The Court held that plaintiffs failed to prove execution of an old agreement and held accused in possession. Concurrent findings of trial and first appellate courts were upheld as based on evidence appreciation without perversity.

What did the court decide?

Second appeals dismissed; records of courts below returned.

Badri Thr Lrs and Ors. Vs Lalit Kishor… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Rajasthan HC (2022)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 16/2018

¶3

Badri S/o Kalyan Deceased Through LRs

¶4

1/1. Nanda S/o Badri, R/o Govindpura, Tehsil Phagi

¶5

1/2. Manna S/o Badri, R/o Govindpura, Tehsil Phagi

¶6

1/3. Chhitar S/o Badri, R/o Govindpura, Tehsil Phagi

¶7

1/4. Sarju D/o Badri W/o Govindnarayan, R/o Raholi, Tehsil Niwai

¶8

1/5. Radha D/o Badri W/o Badrinarayan, R/o Phagi,

¶9

1/6. Dakha D/o Badri W/o Kajor, R/o Harsuliyan, Tehsil Phagi,

¶10

Nanu S/o Kalyan, R/o Govindpura Alias Mandaliyan, Tehsil Phagi, District Jaipur

¶11

Norti W/o Bholu, R/o Govindpura Alias Mandaliyan, Tehsil Phagi, District Jaipur

¶12

Munna Alias Mohan S/o Bholu, R/o Govindpura Alias Mandaliyan, Tehsil Phagi, District Jaipur

¶13

Dhanna S/o Bholu, R/o Govindpura Alias Mandaliyan, Tehsil Phagi, District Jaipur

¶14

Munni D/o Bholu, R/o Govindpura Alias Mandaliyan, Tehsil Phagi, District Jaipur

¶15

----Appellants

¶16

Versus

¶17

Lalit Kishor S/o Bhairu Narayan, R/o Brahampuri, Jaipur District Jaipur

¶18

Om Prakash S/o Bhairu Narayan, R/o Brahampuri, Jaipur District Jaipur

¶19

Smt. Sarla D/o Bhairu Narayan, R/o Brahampuri, Jaipur District Jaipur

¶20

Smt. Shakuntala D/o Bhairu Narayan, R/o Brahampuri, Jaipur District Jaipur

¶21

Smt. Chandra D/o Bhairu Narayan, R/o Brahampuri, Jaipur District Jaipur

¶22

Chanda S/o Birma Deceased Now Represented By

¶23

6/1. Narbada W/o Chanda, R/o Govindpura Alias Mandalia, Tehsil Phagi, District Jaipur

¶24

6/2. Kalu S/o Chanda, R/o Govindpura Alias Mandalia, Tehsil Phagi, District Jaipur

¶25

6/3. Harlal S/o Chanda, R/o Govindpura Alias Mandalia, Tehsil Phagi, District Jaipur

¶26

6/4. Kamla W/o Nathu D/o Chanda, R/o Govindpura Alias Mandalia, Tehsil Phagi, District Jaipur

¶27

6/5. Ganga D/o Chanda, R/o Govindpura Alias Mandalia, Tehsil Phagi, District Jaipur

¶28

----Respondents

¶29

Connected With

¶30

S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 17/2018

¶31

Badri S/o Kalyan Deceased Through LRs

¶32

(2 of 12) [CSA-16/2018]

¶33

1/1. Nanda S/o Badri, R/o Govindpura, Tehsil Phagi

¶34

1/2. Manna S/o Badri, R/o Govindpura, Tehsil Phagi

¶35

1/3. Chhitar S/o Badri, R/o Govindpura, Tehsil Phagi

¶36

1/4. Sarju D/o Badri W/o Govindnarayan, R/o Raholi, Tehsil Niwai

¶37

1/5. Radha D/o Badri W/o Badrinarayan, R/o Phagi

¶38

1/6. Dakha D/o Badri W/o Kajor, R/o Harsuliyan, Tehsil Phagi,

¶39

Nanu S/o Kalyan, R/o Govindpura Alias Mandaliyan, Tehsil Phagi, District Jaipur

¶40

Norti W/o Bholu, R/o Govindpura Alias Mandaliyan, Tehsil Phagi, District Jaipur

¶41

Munna Alias Mohan S/o Bholu, R/o Govindpura Alias Mandaliyan, Tehsil Phagi, District Jaipur

¶42

Dhanna S/o Bholu, R/o Govindpura Alias Mandaliyan, Tehsil Phagi, District Jaipur

¶43

Munni D/o Bholu, R/o Govindpura Alias Mandaliyan, Tehsil Phagi, District Jaipur ----Appellants

¶44

Versus

¶45

Lalit Kishor S/o Bhairu Narayan, R/o Brahampuri, Jaipur District Jaipur

¶46

Om Prakash S/o Bhairu Narayan, R/o Brahampuri, Jaipur District Jaipur

¶47

Smt. Sarla D/o Bhairu Narayan, R/o Brahampuri, Jaipur District Jaipur

¶48

Smt. Shakuntala D/o Bhairu Narayan, R/o Brahampuri, Jaipur District Jaipur

¶49

Smt. Chandra D/o Bhairu Narayan, R/o Brahampuri, Jaipur District Jaipur

¶50

Bhojya S/o Mewa, R/o Govindpura Alias Mandaliyan, Tehsil Phagi, District Jaipur

¶51

----Respondents

¶52

S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 18/2018

¶53

Badri S/o Kalyan Deceased Through Lrs 1/1. Nanda S/o Badri, R/o Govindpura, Tehsil Phagi

¶54

1/2. Manna S/o Badri, R/o Govindpura, Tehsil Phagi

¶55

1/3. Chhitar S/o Badri, R/o Govindpura, Tehsil Phagi 1/4. Sarju D/o Badri W/o Govindnarayan, R/o Phagi

¶56

1/5. Radha D/o Badri W/o Badrinarayan, R/o Phagi

¶57

1/6. Dakha D/o Badri W/o Kajor, R/o Harsuliyan, Tehsil Phagi,

¶58

Nanu S/o Kalyan, R/o Govindpura Alias Mandaliyan, Tehsil Phagi, District Jaipur

¶59

Norti W/o Bholu, R/o Govindpura Alias Mandaliyan, Tehsil Phagi, District Jaipur

¶60

Munna Alias Mohan S/o Bholu, R/o Govindpura Alias Mandaliyan, Tehsil Phagi, District Jaipur

¶61

Dhanna S/o Bholu, R/o Govindpura Alias Mandaliyan, Tehsil Phagi, District Jaipur

¶62

Munni D/o Bholu, R/o Govindpura Alias Mandaliyan, Tehsil

¶63

(3 of 12)

¶64

[CSA-16/2018]

¶65

Phagi, District Jaipur

¶66

----Appellants

¶67

Versus

¶68

1. Lalit Kishor S/o Bhairu Narayan, R/o Brahampuri, Jaipur District Jaipur

¶69

1. Om Prakash S/o Bhairu Narayan, R/o Brahampuri, Jaipur District Jaipur

¶70

1. Smt. Sarla D/o Bhairu Narayan, R/o Brahampuri, Jaipur District Jaipur

¶71

1. Smt. Shakuntala D/o Bhairu Narayan, R/o Brahampuri, Jaipur District Jaipur

¶72

1. Smt. Chandra D/o Bhairu Narayan, R/o Brahampuri, Jaipur District Jaipur

¶73

1. Ramchandra S/o Dhanna, R/o Govindpura Alias Mandaliyan, Tehsil Phagi, District Jaipur ----Respondents

¶74

S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 19/2018

¶75

1. Badri S/o Kalyan Deceased Through Lrs 1/1. Nanda S/o Badri, R/o Govindpura, Tehsil Phagi

¶76

1/2. Manna S/o Badri, R/o Govindpura, Tehsil Phagi

¶77

1/3. Chhitar S/o Badri, R/o Govindpura, Tehsil Phagi 1/4. Sarju D/o Badri W/o Govindnarayan, R/o Raholi, Tehsil Niwai 1/5. Radha D/o Badri W/o Badrinarayan, R/o Phagi 1/6. Dakha D/o Badri W/o Kajor, R/o Harsuliyan, Tehsil Phagi, 2. Nanu S/o Kalyan, R/o Govindpura Alias Mandaliyan, Tehsil Phagi, District Jaipur

¶78

1. Norti W/o Bholu, R/o Govindpura Alias Mandaliyan, Tehsil Phagi, District Jaipur

¶79

1. Munna Alias Mohan S/o Bholu, R/o Govindpura Alias Mandaliyan, Tehsil Phagi, District Jaipur

¶80

1. Dhanna S/o Bholu, R/o Govindpura Alias Mandaliyan, Tehsil Phagi, District Jaipur

¶81

1. Munni D/o Bholu, R/o Govindpura Alias Mandaliyan, Tehsil Phagi, District Jaipur ----Appellants

¶82

Versus

¶83

Lalit Kishor S/o Bhairu Narayan, R/o Brahampuri, Jaipur District Jaipur

¶84

Om Prakash S/o Bhairu Narayan, R/o Brahampuri, Jaipur District Jaipur

¶85

Smt. Sarla D/o Bhairu Narayan, R/o Brahampuri, Jaipur District Jaipur

¶86

Smt. Shakuntala D/o Bhairu Narayan, R/o Brahampuri, Jaipur District Jaipur

¶87

Smt. Chandra D/o Bhairu Narayan, R/o Brahampuri, Jaipur District Jaipur

¶88

Rajulal S/o Ramkaran, R/o Dabich, Tehsil Phagi ----Respondents

¶89

(4 of 12)

¶90

[CSA-16/2018]

¶91

S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 20/2018

¶92

Badri S/o Kalyan Deceased Through LRs

¶93

1/1. Nanda S/o Badri, R/o Govindpura, Tehsil Phagi.

¶94

1/2. Manna S/o Badri, R/o Govindpura, Tehsil Phagi.

¶95

1/3. Chhitar S/o Badri, R/o Govindpura, Tehsil Phagi.

¶96

1/4. Sarju D/o Badri, W/o Govindnarayan, R/o Raholi, Tehsil Niwai.

¶97

1/5. Radha D/o Badri, W/o Badrinarayan, R/o Phagi.

¶98

1/6. Dakha D/o Badri, W/o Kajor, R/o Harsuliyan, Tehsil Phagi.

¶99

Nanu S/o Kalyan, R/o Govindpura Alias Mandaliyan, Tehsil Phagi, Distt. Jaipur.

¶100

Norti W/o Bholu, R/o Govindpura Alias Mandaliyan, Tehsil

¶101

1. Phagi, Distt. Jaipur.

¶102

Munna Alias Mohan S/o Bholu, R/o Govindpura Alias Mandaliyan, Tehsil Phagi, Distt. Jaipur.

¶103

Dhanna S/o Bholu, R/o Govindpura Alias Mandaliyan, Tehsil Phagi, Distt. Jaipur.

¶104

Munni D/o Bholu, R/o Govindpura Alias Mandaliyan, Tehsil Phagi, Distt. Jaipur.

¶105

----Appellants

¶106

Versus

¶107

Lalit Kishor S/o Bhairu Narayan, R/o Brahampuri, Jaipur, Distt. Jaipur.

¶108

Om Prakash S/o Bhairu Narayan, R/o Brahampuri, Jaipur, Distt. Jaipur.

¶109

Smt. Sarla D/o Bhairu Narayan, R/o Brahampuri, Jaipur, Distt. Jaipur.

¶110

Smt. Shakuntala D/o Bhairu Narayan, R/o Brahampuri, Jaipur, Distt. Jaipur.

¶111

Smt. Chandra D/o Bhairu Narayan, R/o Brahampuri, Jaipur, Distt. Jaipur.

¶112

Babulal S/o Dhannalal, R/o Govindpura Alias Mandaliyan, Tehsil Phagi.

¶113

----Respondents

¶114

S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 21/2018

¶115

Badri S/o Kalyan Deceased Through Lrs

¶116

1/1. Nanda S/o Badri, R/o Govindpura, Teh. Phagi

¶117

1/2. Manna S/o Badri, R/o Govindpura, Teh. Phagi

¶118

1/3. Chhitar S/o Badri, R/o Govindpura, Teh. Phagi

¶119

1/4. Sarju D/o Badri W/o Govindnarayan, R/o Raholi, Teh. Niwai

¶120

1/5. Radha D/o Badri W/o Badrinarayan, R/o Phagi

¶121

1/6. Dakha D/o Badri W/o Kajor, R/o Harsuliyan, Teh. Phagi,

¶122

Nanu S/o Kalyan, R/o Govindpura @ Mandaliyan, Teh. Phagi, Distt. Jaipur

¶123

Norti W/o Bholu, R/o Govindpura @ Mandaliyan, Teh. Phagi, Distt. Jaipur

¶124

Munna @ Mohan S/o Bholu, R/o Govindpura @ Mandaliyan, Teh. Phagi, Distt. Jaipur

¶125

Dhanna S/o Bholu, R/o Govindpura @ Mandaliyan, Teh. Phagi,

(5 of 12)

[CSA-16/2018]

Distt. Jaipur

Munni D/o Bholu, R/o Govindpura @ Mandaliyan, Teh. Phagi, Distt. Jaipur

¶130

----Appellants Versus

¶131

Lalit Kishor S/o Bhairu Narayan, R/o Brahampuri, Jaipur, Distt. Jaipur

¶132

Om Prakash S/o Bhairu Narayan, R/o Brahampuri, Jaipur, Distt. Jaipur

¶133

Smt. Sarla D/o Bhairu Narayan, R/o Brahampuri, Jaipur, Distt. Jaipur

¶134

Smt. Shakuntala D/o Bhairu Narayan, R/o Brahampuri, Jaipur, Distt. Jaipur

¶135

Smt. Chandra D/o Bhairu Narayan, R/o Brahampuri, Jaipur, Distt. Jaipur

¶136

Jhuntha S/o Birma Gurjar, R/o Brahampuri, Jaipur, Distt. Jaipur ----Respondents

¶137

For Appellant(s) : Mr. N.K. Maloo Sr. Adv. assisted by Mr. V.K. Tamoliya and Mr. N.K. Singhal For Respondent(s) : None

¶138

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL Judgment

¶139

03/11/2022

¶140

All these second appeals involve common issue and appellants-plaintiffs are similar, therefore, with consent of counsel for appellants appeals have been heard together and would stand decided by this common judgment.

¶141

The relevant facts in brief are that appellants-plaintiffs instituted civil suit for specific performance on 16.12.1980, on the basis of an agreement to sale dated 19.7.1964 in respect of land of Khasra No.37/2 measuring 102 Bigha, situated at Mauja Govindpura @ Mandaliyan, Tehsil Phagi, District Jaipur. Plaintiffs alleged that the land in question was agreed to be sold against Rs.9999/- by predecessors of defendants namely Bhairu Narayan and possession was delivered. Thereafter, Bhairu Narayan passed away in 1970 and his legal representatives, instead of honoring

¶142

(6 of 12)

¶143

[CSA-16/2018]

¶144

the agreement to sale dated 19.7.1964, sold the land in question through eight different sale deeds dated 23.6.1980 in favour of eight different persons. Then plaintiffs, instituted eight different civil suits claiming specific performance of agreement to sale dated 19.7.1964 and to cancel the subsequent sale deeds dated 23.6.1980 as also consequential injunction.

¶145

Defendants contested the suit and denied the execution of agreement as also receipt of any sale consideration and delivery of possession and further contended that the land in question has been sold to eight different persons by way of registered sale deeds and purchasers are in possession of the suit property. The subsequent purchasers also submitted separate statements and contended their possession over their respective portion or suit land on the basis of registered sale deed. Learned trial Court, after framing issues and allowing the opportunity to parties to adduce their respective evidence, dismissing the suit vide judgment dated 29.3.2004.

¶146

Learned trial Court has recorded a finding that plaintiff produced two witnesses PW-1 Hanuman Singh and PW-2 Badri and from their evidence, the execution of agreement dated 19.7.1964 is not proved. The trial Court observed that neither any of the witness of agreement nor its scriber was produced by plaintiffs. Plaintiffs after adducing their evidence, moved an application under Section 90 of the Evidence Act with a prayer that a presumption be drawn that document was executed by the executant, since the agreement has become 30 years old. This application was dismissed by the trial Court vide separate order dated 23.10.2001 with findings that when plaintiff could not prove this agreement in his evidence, he cannot pray for drawing a

¶147

(7 of 12)

¶148

[CSA-16/2018]

¶149

presumption for genuineness/ signature of the executant on the agreement taking resort of Section 90 of the Evidence Act. It may be noticed that plaintiffs except producing the agreement in question (Ex.1), do not produced any evidence to prove their possession over the suit property and in respect of making the payment of sale consideration as alleged in the plaint. Due to lack of plaintiffs’ evidence, the trial Court neither found proved the execution of agreement nor plaintiff was found in possession and finally the suit was dismissed vide judgment dated 29.3.2004.

¶150

Appellants-plaintiffs preferred first appeals assailing the judgment and decree dated 29.3.2004 which were considered on merits. The First Appellate Court concurred with the fact finding of the trial Court holding that it is for plaintiffs to prove execution of agreement by his own evidence and in absence of sufficient evidence, the trial Court has not committed any error of fact and law in dismissing suits for specific performance. Finally the first appeal was dismissed vide common judgment dated 9.11.2017.

¶151

Against concurrent fact findings recorded by both Court below, the impugned judgments dated 9.11.2017 and 29.3.2004, these second appeals have been preferred by and on behalf of plaintiffs. 7. Learned Senior Counsel for appellants, in his argument has vehemently urged that learned Courts below committed jurisdictional error in dismissing the application under Section 90 of the Evidence Act. He submits that since the document of agreement dated 19.7.1964 has become 30 years old, therefore, a presumption about its genuineness and execution be drawn in favour of plaintiffs and the suit for specific performance is liable to be decreed. He has placed reliance on the judgment passed in

¶152

(8 of 12)

¶153

[CSA-16/2018]

¶154

case of HazariLal Vs. Shyamlal [2007 (1) WLC (Raj.) 789] and Kanhaiya through LRs Vs. Civil Judge, Junior Divison [2012 (2) DNJ (Raj.) 585] . Counsel for appellants has also argued that the subsequent purchaser/ defendant has nowhere proved that they are bonafide purchaser for value without notice. 8. Heard. Considered.

¶155

At the outset, it may be noticed that plaintiffs have instituted civil suit for specific performance on the basis of their agreement to sale dated 19.7.1964. In pleadings of suit, plaintiffs nowhere pleaded that witnesses of agreement have died. Perusal of ordersheets of the suit goes to show that plaintiffs themselves are guilty for delay in not adducing their evidence. It is obvious that the burden of proof of agreement to sale dated 19.7.1964, lies upon plaintiffs and plaintiffs produced their evidence by producing two witnesses Pw-1 and Pw-2. Thereafter, when a period of 30 years lapsed, apparently for the negligency and derelictory tactics on the part plaintiffs, an application under Section 90 of the Evidence Act was moved by plaintiffs stating that two witnesses of agreement have died and the document of agreement to sale has become 30 years old, therefore, a presumption of its genuineness and valid execution be drawn. No date of death of witness of agreement was mentioned. No explanation about non-production of scriber of agreement namely Roop Narayan was being given by plaintiffs nor plaintiffs stated that he dead. Defendants in their written statement have clearly denied the execution of agreement dated 19.7.1964. In such circumstances, learned trial Court dismissed the application filed by plaintiffs under Section 90 of the Evidence Act, vide order dated 23.10.2001. The document of agreement to sale dated 19.7.1964 is an unregistered and

¶156

(9 of 12)

¶157

[CSA-16/2018]

¶158

disputed document and once plaintiffs miserably failed to produce their evidence to prove the document, plaintiffs cannot be allowed to take advantage of their own negligence and derelictory tactics, so that after expiry of 30 years, may be allowed to draw a presumption about genuineness/ execution of the agreement. Learned trial Court has not committed any illegality or jurisdictional error in dismissing plaintiffs’ application under Section 90 of the Evidence Act.

¶159

In case of Kanhaiya through LRs (supra) on which counsel for appellants has placed reliance, the document in question was a registered sale deed regarding which a presumption of genuineness being 30 years old document was drawn. In the instant case the document in question is an unregistered agreement to sale dated 19.7.1964 which is a disputed document and the basis document of plaintiffs’ suit. Plaintiff themselves are negligent and guilty for not proving the agreement during period of 30 years and after expiry of 30 years, wants to seek advantage of Section 90 of the Evidence Act, for drawing a presumption in law. Therefore, on facts of present case, the ration of judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court may not be held applicable. 11. In case of Hazarilal (supra), the Division Bench propounded the proposition of law that the application under Section 90 of the Evidence Act can be moved/ entertained at any stage of suit proceedings. There is no disagreement to such proposition of law but same does not render any help to the case of appellantsplaintiffs.

¶160

It may also be observed that merely by drawing a presumption about genuineness and execution of agreement to sale dated 19.7.1964, plaintiffs are not entitled to secure the

¶161

(10 of 12)

¶162

[CSA-16/2018]

¶163

decree of specific performance. This Court is not oblivious to the fact that in suits for specific performance apart from proving the execution of agreement there are several connected and relevant factors which are required to be proved by plaintiffs. The relief of specific performance is undoubtedly a discretionary and equitable relief, where the conduct of parties is also one of the relevant factor apart from proving the readiness and willingness by plaintiffs on their part.

¶164

In recent judgment passed in case of Shenbagam Vs. K.K. Rathinavel [AIR 2022 SC 1275] , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has placed reliance on judgment in Nirmala Anand Vs. Advent Corporartion (P.) Ltd. [(2002) 8 SCC 146] wherein the Court observed as under:

¶165

“6. It is true that grant of decree for specific performance lies in the discretion of the Court and it is also well settled that it is not always necessary to grant specific performance simply for the reason that it is legal to do so…………….”

¶166

In case at hand, when plaintiffs miserably failed to prove execution of agreement, two Courts below have not committed any illegality or jurisdictional error in dismissing the suit for specific performance. It is no more res integra that plaintiffs cannot claim specific performance of an agreement as to right and his right is subject to proof of several other relevant factors, which are absent in the present case. Both Courts have concurrently observed that plaintiffs are neither in possession of the suit property nor have proved the payment of any sale consideration, therefore, no equity lies in favour of plaintiffs.

¶167

In case of Ramathal Vs. Maruthathal [(2018) 18 SCC

¶168

303] , where the trial court decreed the suit for specific

¶169

(11 of 12)

¶170

[CSA-16/2018]

¶171

performance and which was affirmed in first appeal but the High Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Section 100 CPC, reversed the decree, then the Hon’ble Supreme Court propounded as under:

¶172

“15. When the intention of the legislature is so clear the courts have no power to enlarge the scope of Section 100 for whatsoeverreasons. Justice has to be administered in accordance with law. In the case on hand the High Court has exceeded its jurisdiction byreversing the well considered judgment of the courts below which is based on cogent reasoning. The learned judge ought not to have entered the arena of reappreciation of the evidence, hence the whole exercise done by the high court is beyond the scopeand jurisdiction conferred under section 100 of CPC.”

¶173

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

¶174

“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 dehors 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. vs. Dashrath Narayan Chilwelkar & Ors.,[AIR 1943 Nag 117 para 43]”

¶175

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in case C. Doddanarayan Reddy vs. C. Jayarama Reddy [(2020) 4 SCC 659] , has

¶176

(12 of 12)

¶177

[CSA-16/2018]

¶178

observed that where two courts have returned 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.

¶179

It is no more res integra that the scope of second appeal is confined to substantial questions of law and without involvement/ formulation of any substantial questions of law, second appeal is not liable to be entertained. Merely by drawing presumption about genuineness/ execution of the agreement appellants-plaintiffs may not claim for the decree of specific performance. This Court is satisfied that in absence of plaintiffs’ evidence, two Courts have not committed any illegality or jurisdictional error in dismissing plaintiffs suit for specific performance. The concurrent fact findings recorded by two Courts below are based on appreciation/ reappreciation of evidence and do not suffer from any perversity, as such are not required to be interfered with. Such fact findings do not give rise to any substantial question of law.

¶180

As a result, all second appeals are bereft of merits being no involvement of any substantial question of law and accordingly, the same are hereby dismissed.

¶181

Record of both Courts below be sent back forthwith.

¶182

All pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of.

¶183

Copy of this order be placed in each connected file.

¶184

(SUDESH BANSAL),J

¶185

NITIN /88-93

Badri Thr Lrs and Ors. v. Lalit Kishor and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Badri Thr Lrs and Ors. v. Lalit Kishor and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shanti Lal Jain Vs Raj State Bhatat Scout and Guide and Oth

Mohan Lal Vs Anandi Bai

Moolchand Vs Smt Krishna Sharma and Anr.

Jagdish Prasad and Others Vs Rameshwar and Others

Sanwarmal S/O Sagar Vs Suresh Kumar S/O Shri Rameshwarlal

Kamlesh and Ors. Vs Balveer Singh