Second Appellate Court Cannot Interfere with Findings of Fact of Lower Courts: Allahabad High Court Reiterates

Recently, the Allahabad High Court reiterated that reconsideration of evidence by the Second Appellate Court was not allowed.

Judge Kshitij Shailendra kept it

“…even where two views are possible, if the courts have adopted one of those views after considering the evidence on record, the Second Court of Appeals will not replace that view with its own opinion. In accordance with Article 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the re-evaluation of evidence to reach a different conclusion in the exercise of judicial power is quite limited…”

Case Background

The plaintiff-defendant filed a lawsuit for the specific performance of the sales contract, which was decided in his favor. The defendant-appellant appealed against the same case but lost. Aggrieved, he filed his second current appeal with the Supreme Court.

Appellant’s counsel argued that it could not be proven that the cash payment specified in the agreement had been made. It was argued that the land constituting the contract was not a specific portion, making the contract void. The appellant stated that the evidence of the witnesses was also inconsistent and the affidavit filed by PW-1 would not be accepted until it was presented in the witness box. Other allegations included the allegation that no witness could verify the payment specified in the agreement.

It was submitted that the burden of proving the validity of the agreement was on the plaintiff and not the defendant.

On the other hand, the defendant’s lawyer argued that the sales contract was a valid document because it was registered. It was submitted that the advance money was received in the presence of witnesses and its legitimacy was proved by the Sub-Registrar. It was further submitted that, according to the findings of the lower courts, the allegation made by the appellant regarding the non-payment of cash did not carry any weight.

Supreme Court Decision

The court observed that the execution of the sale deed was valid as the defendant had also agreed to the same. He observed that the Sub-Registrar had in fact approved the payment specified in the agreement. Additionally, it was seen that the real estate in question was divided and therefore there was no need to make a contract between those sharing the land.

The Court held that under Sections 58, 59 and 60 of the Registration Act, 1908, once the Sub-Registrar gives approval, there can be no doubt as to the validity of the contract of sale. It was held that scope for a rebuttal arose under Sections 91 and 92 of the Evidence Act, 1872. However, the Court found nothing in the record sufficient to rebut that judgment.

While examining the decision of the Supreme Court Ameer Trading Corporation Ltd. with Shapoorji Data Processing Ltd. In the case of UP, the Court observed that the above was fulfilled at a time when the CPC was not amended and even the state amendments in the State of UP were not taken into account. Also in this case Kishan Chand et al, Dr. Kailash vs. Chandra Gupta et al.The court examined Section 22 of the Special Relief Act, 1963. It held that the Division did not bar any action against specific performance.

“A bare perusal of Section 22 will show that it does not refer to any bar against action for specific performance. The provision simply says that such assistance cannot be provided unless specifically requested. In the present case, no such question will arise as no relief under Article 22(1)(a) of the Special Measures Act has been sought or granted by the courts below.” He organized the court.

Court, facts Kishan Chand it was also completely different from the matter at hand. It was held that once the performance of the agreement had been accepted, the appellant could not rely on it for his own purposes.

In its Second Appellate Judgment, the Court held that the lower court could not interfere with the finding of fact.

“Inside Harjeet Singh/Amrik Singh (2005) 12 SCC 270, the Apex Court observed with bitterness that the High Court had no jurisdiction to interfere with the factual findings arrived at by the trial court and the lower appellate court regarding readiness and willingness to perform part of the contract. Jurisdiction under Section 100 CPC.”

Accordingly, the Court ruled that there was no deviation from the views of the lower courts that would justify intervention in the second appellate jurisdiction.

The second objection was rejected.

Case Title: Mahavir Prasad – Balveer Singh and Anr. (SECOND OBJECTION NO. – 540 / 2024)

Click Here to Read/Download the Order