- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Harjeet Singh And Another v. Amrik Singh And Another
Factual and Procedural Background
The appellants filed a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell agricultural land for Rs 4,27,635. According to the appellants, they paid earnest money of Rs 65,000 and the balance was payable at the time of execution of the sale deed, fixed for 11-6-1990. They alleged that although they were present to complete the sale formalities, the respondent-defendants did not appear.
The respondents contested the suit. The trial court found that the appellants were not present in the Sub-Registrar's office on 11-6-1990 and were not in a position to pay the balance consideration; accordingly, the suit was dismissed.
In first appeal, the first appellate court reversed the trial court, giving detailed reasons to hold that the appellants were present on 11-6-1990 and willing to have the sale deed executed. It decreed specific performance for the agreed price less the earnest money, directing the appellants to deposit Rs 3,62,635 on 22-7-1997; upon deposit, Respondent 1 was to execute the sale deed (failing which the court would execute it). If the appellants failed to deposit by that date, the suit would stand dismissed.
The respondents then preferred a second appeal before the High Court. The High Court framed purported substantial questions of law concerning readiness and willingness and entitlement to compensation, and ultimately directed compensation instead of specific performance. The respondents deposited the amount directed by the High Court. The present appeal challenged the High Court's interference with the first appellate court's factual findings in second appeal under Section 100 CPC.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether, in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 100 CPC, the High Court should have interfered with the finding of fact recorded by the first appellate court.
Arguments of the Parties
The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court confined the appeal to the question of the High Court's jurisdiction under Section 100 CPC to interfere with findings of fact recorded by the first appellate court.
It held that the “substantial questions of law” framed by the High Court (readiness and willingness to perform, and entitlement to compensation) did not, on the Court's assessment, raise questions of law at all. The Court characterised the High Court's approach not as correction of perversity but as re-appreciation of evidence, which is impermissible within the constraints of Section 100 CPC.
The Court found it “patent” that the High Court had engaged in evidentiary reassessment, noting the High Court's observation that the appellants had not “fully” proved their case and further observing that the High Court gave no reasons for discarding the first appellate court's reasoning. On this basis, the Court concluded that the High Court “clearly overstepped” its jurisdiction under Section 100 of the Code.
The Court also noted an internal inconsistency in the High Court's approach: after holding that the appellants were not ready and willing, the High Court nevertheless awarded compensation and issued directions for payment (including a conditional interest direction). While recording that the respondents had deposited the amount as directed by the High Court, the Court proceeded to restore the first appellate court's decree.
Although the Court stated it scrutinised the first appellate court's order at the respondents' behest, it concluded that no perversity was shown that would justify interference under Section 100 CPC.
Holding and Implications
ALLOWED; High Court decision SET ASIDE; first appellate court decree AFFIRMED (with modification).
The Court set aside the High Court's decision and affirmed the first appellate court's decree for specific performance, except that it extended the time for the appellants to deposit the balance consideration by four weeks from the date of the order. The amount was to be deposited in the trial court; failing such deposit within the extended time, the appeal would stand dismissed with costs.
The respondents were given liberty to withdraw the amount deposited pursuant to the High Court's order, along with any accrued interest. The decision directly restored the specific performance decree (subject to timely deposit) and turned on limits of second-appellate jurisdiction under Section 100 CPC; no new precedent was identified as being set in the provided text.
Order
1. Leave granted.
2. The only question in this appeal is whether the High Court should have entered into a finding of fact arrived at by the first appellate court under Section 100 CPC.
3. The suit in question was filed by the appellants against the respondents for specific performance of an agreement to sell agricultural land at a price of Rs 4,27,635. It was the appellants' case that they had paid the earnest money amount of Rs 65,000 and the balance amount was to be paid on the date of the execution of the sale deed which was fixed for 11-6-1990. The grievance of the appellants was that despite the appellants being present for the purpose of completion of formalities of the agreement of sale, the respondent-defendants did not turn up.
4. The respondents contested the case. On the finding by the trial court that the appellant was not present at the office of the Sub-Registrar on 11-6-1990 and that the appellant was not in a position to complete the sale transaction by way of payment of the balance consideration, the suit was dismissed. The appellant took up the matter in first appeal. The first appellate court gave detailed reasons for coming to the conclusion that the appellant was present in the office of Sub-Registrar on 11-6-1990 and was also willing to get the sale deed executed on that date. The first appellate court accordingly directed specific performance of the agreement for an amount of Rs 4,27,635 less Rs 65,000 already paid by way of earnest money. The appellants were directed to deposit a sum of Rs 3,62,635 in the lower court on 22-7-1997. Upon the amount so deposited Respondent 1 was to execute the sale deed in favour of the appellants failing which the court would execute the sale deed on behalf of the respondents in favour of the appellants. If, on the other hand, the appellants failed to deposit the sum of Rs 3,62,635 on or before 22-7-1997, the suit would stand dismissed.
5. From this order the second appeal was preferred by the respondent. The questions which the High Court thought were substantial questions of law were:
(1) Whether the plaintiffs were always ready and willing to perform their part of the contract and are entitled to a decree for specific performance?
(2) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to alternative relief of compensation under the Specific Relief Act (for short the Act)?
6. In our view the questions as framed, did not raise any question of law at all.
7. It was not a case of finding of perversity but a case of appreciation of the evidence by the High Court.
8. This is patent from the High Court holding that the appellants had not “fully” proved that they were not performing their part of the contract. No reason was given by the High Court for discarding the reasoning given by the first appellate court. The High Court has clearly overstepped its jurisdiction prescribed under Section 100 of the Code.
9. Having held that the appellants were not ready and willing to perform the contract, there was indeed no question of the appellants being compensated. Nevertheless the High Court came to the conclusion that the appellants were required to be compensated and accordingly directed decree in favour of the plaintiffs for an amount of rupees five lakhs after depositing the amount of Rs 65,000 together with interest thereon within two months from the date of the decision of the High Court. It was further directed that if the respondent-defendants did not pay the amount within the time specified, they would be liable to pay interest at the rate of 25% per annum on the balance of the amount of rupees five lakhs as well as the costs of the suit assessed at Rs 25,000. The respondents have deposited the amount as directed by the High Court.
10. We have already held that the High Court had no jurisdiction to interfere with the finding of fact arrived at by the first appellate court. We have, at the behest of the respondents scrutinised the order of the first appellate court. It cannot be said that there was any perversity which required correction under Section 100 of the Code. Consequently, we set aside the decision of the High Court and affirm the decision of the first appellate court except that the period for the appellants to deposit the balance consideration is extended by four weeks from today. Such amount be deposited in the trial court. In default of making such payment within the aforesaid time, this appeal will stand dismissed with costs. The respondents are at liberty to withdraw the amount said to have been deposited pursuant to the order of the High Court with any interest which may have accumulated thereon. The appeal is allowed on the aforesaid terms.
Alert