Summary
The Supreme Court set aside a High Court judgment in second appeal that had restored a decree for specific performance, holding that the question framed was not even a question of law, that the High Court overlooked the first appellate court's findings doubting the plaintiff's readiness and willingness, and that it should not have disturbed a well-reasoned first appellate judgment; the defendants were instead directed to pay the plaintiffs Rs. 3,50,000.
Issues
- Whether the question framed by the High Court in second appeal was a substantial question of law under Section 100 CPC.
- Whether the High Court could restore the trial court's decree for specific performance without addressing the first appellate court's findings on the plaintiff's readiness and willingness and the delay in suing.
- Scope of interference with findings of fact of the first appellate court in second appeal.
Provisions considered
- Section 100, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908The Court restated that a second appeal lies only on a substantial question of law formulated at admission, that the High Court cannot reappreciate evidence or substitute its view on facts found by the first appellate court except on limited grounds, and found the question framed here did not qualify. (¶¶ 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 31, 32)
- Section 103, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908Quoted as empowering the High Court to decide an issue of fact in second appeal where the evidence is sufficient and the issue was not determined or was wrongly determined by reason of a decision on a substantial question of law; with Bhagwan Sharma v. Bani Ghosh, such a course requires full hearing on the evidence or a remand. (¶¶ 29, 30)
- Section 20(2)(b), Specific Relief Act, 1963The High Court had held the first appellate court could not refuse specific performance on hardship without a pleading or issue under this clause; the Supreme Court held the High Court misread the first appellate judgment, which also rested on doubts about readiness and willingness. (¶¶ 16, 20, 21)
Held
- A question whether the lower appellate court committed an illegality by not affirming the trial court and denied discretionary relief arbitrarily is not even a question of law, let alone a substantial question of law; a judgment in second appeal on such a question cannot stand. (¶¶ 13, 23, 26)
- Under Section 100 CPC the High Court cannot disturb findings of fact of the first appellate court, the final court of facts, unless they are contrary to mandatory provisions of law or settled law declared by the Supreme Court, rest on inadmissible evidence, or are without evidence; it may not reappreciate evidence to reach another possible view. (¶¶ 24, 25, 27, 28)
- A question is substantial when it is of general public importance or directly and substantially affects the rights of the parties and is not settled or calls for discussion of alternative views; applying well-settled principles or a palpably absurd plea does not raise one. (¶ 31)
- The High Court wrongly assumed the first appellate court had reversed the decree only on hardship under Section 20(2)(b) of the Specific Relief Act, ignoring its findings that the plaintiff's long inaction cast doubt on his readiness and willingness; it ought not to have disturbed that well-reasoned judgment. (¶¶ 9, 20, 21, 22)
- Declining specific performance, and having regard to the plaintiffs' own statement of the present market value of the land, the Court directed the defendants to pay the plaintiffs Rs. 3,50,000 within eight weeks, failing which the trial court's decree would revive. (¶¶ 34, 35)
Result
Appeals disposed of; High Court judgment in second appeal set aside; specific performance refused; appellants (original defendants) directed to pay Rs. 3,50,000 to the respondents within eight weeks, failing which the trial court's decree for specific performance shall stand restored.