Smt. Shova Devi And Others vs Sri Hasmukh Thacker
2025 Latest Caselaw 3269 Jhar

Jharkhand High Court

Smt. Shova Devi And Others vs Sri Hasmukh Thacker on 17 March, 2025

Author: Anubha Rawat Choudhary

Bench: Anubha Rawat Choudhary

                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

                               Second Appeal No. 4 of 2016

            Smt. Shova Devi and others                 ...    ...    Appellants
                                    Versus
            Sri Hasmukh Thacker           ...             ...       Respondent
                                    ---

CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY

---

For the Appellants : Ms. Niharika Mazumdar, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. Rahul Gupta, Advocate

---

20/17.03.2025 Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the case has been admitted for final hearing vide order dated 01.08.2018 framing two substantial questions of law.

2. However, she has submitted that so far as second substantial question of law is concerned, the word defendant has been used at three places and there is a typographical error. She submits that at first and the third place, the word ought to have been plaintiff. She has suggested reframing of substantial question of law.

3. The learned counsel for the respondent has no objection to the aforesaid prayer seeking reframing of aforesaid substantial question of law.

4. Accordingly, this second appeal will be heard on the following questions of law:

(i) "Whether the contradictory interpretation of exhibit 1 by both the lower court below gives rise to a substantial question of law as one of the co-sharer is not a party to thus any such alienation by virtue of said agreement in question is not sustainable in the eyes of law? (already framed vide order dated 01.08.2018)

(ii) Whether the failure of the plaintiff with cogent evidence to demonstrate his willingness to perform his part of the agreement with the defendants debars the plaintiff to have specific performance of contract as per Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act?" (reframed)

5. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that the appellants were the defendants in the suit. The impugned First Appellate Court judgment is the judgment of reversal. The Title Suit seeking Specific Performance of Contract (Exhibit 1) was dismissed and the appeal has been allowed by the first appellate court.

6. The learned counsel for the parties have commenced their argument on the aforesaid modified substantial questions of law and after some argument, they jointly pray that the matter be posted tomorrow for further hearing.

7. Post this case for further hearing tomorrow i.e. 18.03.2025 to be taken up at 10:30 A.M. as a first case.

(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Binit