Sarita Rani Vs. Deepak Raj & Ors.
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal No. 1414 of 2000
(Arising out of SLP(C) No. 17191/99)
(Arising out of SLP(C) No. 17191/99)
Petitioner: Sarita Rani
Respondent: Deepak Raj & Ors.
Apeal: Civil Appeal No. 1414 of 2000
(Arising out of SLP(C) No. 17191/99)
(Arising out of SLP(C) No. 17191/99)
Judges: S. RAJENDRA BABU & SHIVARAJ V. PATIL, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Jul 21, 2000
Head Note:
SPECIFIC RELIEF
Specific Relief Act, 1963
Section 20(2)(b) with Transfer of Property Act, 1882 – Section 53 – Suit decreed – Findings upset by High Court in second appeal – Bona fide purchaser not entering the witness box but producing sale deed – Plea not upheld by courts below – No plea of hardship raised. Held that findings could not be upset and question of hardship could not be decided.
(Paras 4, 5)
JUDGEMENT:
ORDER
1. Leave granted.
2. In a suit for specific performance, the trial court after appreciating the evidence on record, gave its findings on the issues arising in the case and decreed the suit. On appeal, the findings of the trial court were affirmed.
3. On a second appeal, the High Court upset the findings of the trial court as affirmed by the Appellate Court on two aspects, firstly, the question whether defendant no. 2 is a bona fide purchaser for a value and secondly, question whether hardship may result to the defendant-vendor and which had not been considered by the High Court and first Appellate Court.
4. So far as the first question is concerned, the High Court, did notice the fact that defendant no. 2 who got the sale deed executed in his favour did not even enter the witness box in respect of the claim made by him that he is a bona fide purchaser for value without having notice of the earlier agreement, however, stated that this aspect ought to have been examined. We fail to understand, when two Courts come to the conclusion that no evidence had been adduced in this regard and when defendant no. 2 had only produced the sale deed without even examining himself, as to how the High Court in the second appeal could have upset a finding to that effect.
5. On the second question there was neither any plea nor proof that defendant-vendor suffered hardship as a result of the sale being asked to be specifically performed. When the plea of hardship had not been raised by the party concerned, examination of the provisions of Section 20(2)(b) of the Specific Relief Act would not arise at all. When the party concerned did not raise this plea as to how the Court could imagine it might result in hardship to the party concerned, is beyond our comprehension. We set aside the order of the High Court and restore that of the first Appellate Court. The appeal is allowed accordingly.
1. Leave granted.
2. In a suit for specific performance, the trial court after appreciating the evidence on record, gave its findings on the issues arising in the case and decreed the suit. On appeal, the findings of the trial court were affirmed.
3. On a second appeal, the High Court upset the findings of the trial court as affirmed by the Appellate Court on two aspects, firstly, the question whether defendant no. 2 is a bona fide purchaser for a value and secondly, question whether hardship may result to the defendant-vendor and which had not been considered by the High Court and first Appellate Court.
4. So far as the first question is concerned, the High Court, did notice the fact that defendant no. 2 who got the sale deed executed in his favour did not even enter the witness box in respect of the claim made by him that he is a bona fide purchaser for value without having notice of the earlier agreement, however, stated that this aspect ought to have been examined. We fail to understand, when two Courts come to the conclusion that no evidence had been adduced in this regard and when defendant no. 2 had only produced the sale deed without even examining himself, as to how the High Court in the second appeal could have upset a finding to that effect.
5. On the second question there was neither any plea nor proof that defendant-vendor suffered hardship as a result of the sale being asked to be specifically performed. When the plea of hardship had not been raised by the party concerned, examination of the provisions of Section 20(2)(b) of the Specific Relief Act would not arise at all. When the party concerned did not raise this plea as to how the Court could imagine it might result in hardship to the party concerned, is beyond our comprehension. We set aside the order of the High Court and restore that of the first Appellate Court. The appeal is allowed accordingly.
