Rajasthan High Court
Banshilal S/O Suwalal vs Shrawan S/O Maangu on 20 October, 2022
Bench: Sudesh Bansal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Second Appeal No.252/2022
Banshilal S/o Suwalal, Aged About 55 Years, R/o Neemli, Tehsil
Dudu, District Jaipur.
----Appellant
Versus
1. Shrawan S/o Maangu, R/o Sirohi Khurd, Tehsil Fulera,
Currently Residing At Bhadsiya, Tehsil Parbatsar, Dist.
Nagoar.
2. Girdharilal S/o Prabhu Dayal, R/o Singod Khurd Via
Khejroli, Tehsil Chomu, Dist. Jaipur.
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Faraz Hussain
For Respondent(s) :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL
Judgment
20/10/2022
1. Appellant-plaintiff has preferred this second appeal under
Section 100 CPC assailing the judgment and decree dated
16.08.2022 passed in Civil First Appeal No.03/2020 passed by the
Court of Additional District Judge No.2 Sambhar Lake, District
Jaipur affirming the judgment and decree dated 11.02.2019
passed in Civil Suit No.24/2008 by the Court of Senior Civil Judge
and Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sambhar Lake, District
Jaipur whereby the suit for specific performance of an agreement
filed by appellant-plaintiff has been dismissed on merits.
2. Heard counsel for appellant-plaintiff and perused the
impugned judgments.
3. Both courts below have concurrently observed that the
agreement to sell dated 20.12.2004, on which appellant-plaintiff
has placed reliance is interpolated and has not been executed on
(2 of 3) [CSA-252/2022]
any stamp-paper. It has been observed that plaintiff neither could
prove execution of agreement nor payment of sale consideration
nor his possession over the suit land. It has been observed that
the defendant No.1-Shrawan has sold the suit land through
registered sale deed dated 15.11.2008 to defendant No.2-
Girdharilal who is in cultivation and possession of the suit land.
The issue of readiness and willingness have also been decided
against the plaintiff.
4. The fact findings recorded by both courts below are based on
appreciation/re-appreciation of evidence. Learned counsel for
appellant could not point out any perversity in the fact findings nor
could show that findings are based on either no evidence or suffer
from misreading/non-reading of evidence.
5. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Ramathal Vs.
Maruthathal and Ors. [(2018)18 SCC 303] while dealing with
the scope of Section 100 CPC to interfere in fact findings of two
courts below in respect of decreeing a suit for specific
performance observed as under:-
"When the intention of the legislature is so clear the courts
have no power to enlarge the scope of Section 100 for
whatsoever reasons. Justice has to be administered in
accordance with law. In the case on hand the High Court
has exceeded its jurisdiction by reversing the well
considered judgment of the courts below which is based on
cogent reasoning. The learned judge ought not to have
entered the arena of re appreciation of the evidence, hence
the whole exercise done by the High Court is beyond the
scope and jurisdiction conferred under Section 100 of CPC."
6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of State of Rajasthan
v. Shiv Dayal [(2019) 8 SCC 637], has held that a concurrent
(3 of 3) [CSA-252/2022]
finding of the fact is binding, unless it is pointed out that it was
recorded dehors the pleadings or it was based on no evidence or
based on misreading of the material on records and documents.
The Court held as under:
"When any concurrent finding of fact is assailed in second
appeal, the appellant is entitled to point out that it is bad in
law because it was recorded dehors the pleadings or it was
based on no evidence or it was based on misreading of
material documentary evidence or it was recorded against
any provision of law and lastly, the decision is one which no
Judge acting judicially could reasonably have reached. (see
observation made by learned Judge Vivian Bose,J. as his
Lordship then was a Judge of the Nagpur High Court in
Rajeshwar Vishwanath Mamidwar & Ors. vs. Dashrath
Narayan Chilwelkar & Ors.,[AIR 1943 Nag 117 para 43]"
7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in case C. Doddanarayan
Reddy vs. C. Jayarama Reddy [(2020) 4 SCC 659], has
observed that where two courts have reached a finding which is
not based upon any misreading of material documents, nor is
recorded against provisions of law and neither can it be said that
any Judge acting judiciously and reasonably could not have
reached such a finding, then High Court is not required to interfere
with such fact findings while exercising its jurisdiction under
Section 100 CPC.
8. As a result, the second appeal is bereft of merits being no
involvement of any substantial question of law and accordingly,
the same is hereby dismissed.
9. All pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of.
(SUDESH BANSAL),J
SAURABH/10
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
