9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
- Interpretation of a judgment rendered by the Allahabad High Court in a Second Appeal under Section 100 of the CPC. - Dispute over specific performance of a contract and cancellation of a sale deed. - Allegations regarding readiness and willingness to perform the contract. - Variation in the area of land in question due to consolidation proceedings. - Applicability of legal precedents in determining minor variations in property descriptions. - Examination of evidence and findings by lower courts in a second appeal before the High Court. Analysis: The Supreme Court analyzed an appeal challenging a judgment by the Allahabad High Court in a Second Appeal under Section 100 of the CPC. The dispute revolved around a suit for specific performance of a contract and cancellation of a sale deed. The plaintiffs alleged payment of advance money and a fixed sale consideration, with a balance amount to be paid at the time of execution of the sale deed. The trial court decreed the suit, but the first Appellate Court set aside the judgment, citing changes in the land area and lack of evidence supporting the plaintiffs' readiness and willingness to perform the contract. The High Court considered a minor variation in the land area due to consolidation proceedings, referencing legal precedents to support the decree. It emphasized the duty of the first Appellate Court to examine evidence and rectify erroneous findings, allowing for proper findings in a second appeal. The Supreme Court scrutinized the arguments presented before the High Court. The appellant contended that the High Court should have formulated a question regarding the plaintiffs' readiness and willingness to perform the contract, as the findings of the first Appellate Court were crucial. Conversely, the respondents argued that the High Court's conclusions were based on the first Appellate Court's findings and should not be hindered by the lack of a specific question formulation. The Court referred to Section 100(5) of the CPC, highlighting the High Court's power to address substantial questions of law not initially formulated if deemed necessary. The Court delved into the provisions of Section 100(5) and the lack of a question formulated regarding the findings on readiness and willingness. It noted the absence of recorded reasons for deviating from the formulated question and the appellant's failure to raise the issue before the High Court. The Court distinguished legal precedents cited by the lower courts and upheld the High Court's decision based on the applicable law. However, it ruled in favor of the appellant due to the High Court's failure to address the findings of the first Appellate Court adequately. The Court emphasized the necessity for the High Court to demonstrate errors in the lower court's findings and relevant considerations in a second appeal, ultimately setting aside the judgment of the High Court.
|
