In this Second Appeal seeking specific performance of a sale agreement, the Court held that the questions of law raised were not substantial under Section 100 CPC and concurrent findings of fact could not be interfered with, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.
Second Appeal dismissed at the stage of admission; no order as to costs.
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.
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED
SECOND APPEAL No.564 of 2011
JUDGMENT:
This Second Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree, dated 09.12.2010, passed by the X Additional Chief Judge (Fast Track Court), City Civil Court, Hyderbad, dismissing the appeal-A.S.No.596 of 2007 and thereby, confirming the judgment and decree, 24.09.2007, passed by the Additional Judge, City Small Causes Courtcum-VI Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad in O.S.No.2166 of 1989.
The said suit was filed for the relief of specific performance directing the first defendant to produce the original title deed and other documents of the property in question evidencing his title and to execute a regular sale deed by receiving the balance sale consideration and in the alternative to refund Rs.1.00 lakh with interest thereon.
The trial Court, on the basis of the pleadings in the written statement, framed as many as 24 issues for trial. During the course of trial, the plaintiff got himself examined as P.W-1 and examined P.Ws.1 to 7 and marked Exs.A-1 to A-76, besides Exs.X-1 to X-7 on his behalf. On behalf of the defendants, D.Ws.1 to 5 were examined and Exs.B-1 to B-13 were marked.
The trial Court while answering the issues framed by it, dismissed the main plea of the plaintiff for specific performance of the sale agreement, dated 10.11.1980 and decreed the suit partly only on the alternative plea of return of part sale consideration paid to the first defendant, i.e., the part sale consideration of Rs.60,000/- is ordered
to be returned back to the plaintiff within a period of three months therefrom. The same was questioned by the plaintiff-appellant herein by filing A.S.No.596 of 2007 on the file of the X Additional Chief Judge (Fast Track Court), City Civil Court, Hyderabad, who dismissed the said appeal, vide judgment, dated 09.12.2010. Hence, the Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code.
Heard Sri Kishore Rai, learned counsel for the appellant-plaintiff and perused the material papers on record.
In my considered view, the questions of law raised in the memorandum of grounds of the Second Appeal are not substantial questions of law. The requirement to file a Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code is that there shall be substantial question of law.
Further, the said suit was filed for specific performance of sale agreement. The trial Court after appreciating the entire evidence, both oral and documentary, on record decreed the suit, which was confirmed in appeal by the lower appellate Court on reappreciation of the entire evidence on record. The concurrent findings of fact recorded by both the Courts below cannot be interfered by this Court in the Second Appeal invoking the jurisdiction under Section 100 C.P.C.
That apart, as stated supra, the questions of law raised in the memorandum of grounds of appeal cannot be termed as substantial questions of law and accordingly, I see no merit in the Second Appeal and the same is liable to be dismissed.
In the result, the Second Appeal is dismissed, at the
stage of admission. There shall be no order as to costs.
______________________________ JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED
24th June 2011 DR
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the questions of law raised in the Second Appeal constitute substantial questions of law under Section 100 CPC.
Whether concurrent findings of fact by lower courts can be interfered with in a Second Appeal.
Whether the Second Appeal has merit to be allowed or dismissed.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Plaintiff
Defendant
Ghulam Mohammed
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
