Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + HC Indian Laws - 2017 (9) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (9) TMI 1992 - HC - Indian LawsSuit for specific performance of contract - owner of suit property by way of adverse possession, as alleged or not - entitlement for the relief of injunction or not - time limitation - valid transfer of title in favour of the plaintiff or not? - estoppel from filing the present suit against the defendants, on account of his own acts, deeds and acquiescence or not - whether suit is not properly valued for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction? HELD THAT:- It is well settled by now that a finding of fact itself may give rise to a substantial question of law, inter alia, in the event the findings are based on no evidence and/or while arriving at the said findings, relevant admissible evidence has not been taken into consideration or inadmissible evidence has been taken into consideration or legal principles have not been applied in appreciating the evidence, or when the evidence has been misread - Hon'ble Apex Court in DR. RATHNA MURTHY VERSUS RAMAPPA [2010 (10) TMI 909 - SUPREME COURT], has specifically held that High Court can interfere with the findings of fact even in the second appeal, provided the findings recorded by Courts below are found to be perverse. It has further been held in the case supra that there is no absolute bar on the re-appreciation of evidence in those proceedings; however, such a course is permissible in exceptional circumstances. In the instant case, this Court, after having carefully perused the communications Ex. PW-1/L to Ex./PW-1/O issued by the vendor, has no hesitation to conclude that the vendor had repeatedly extended time for execution of sale deed and at no point of time he conveyed to the plaintiff with regard to his intention, if any, of not selling the property in terms of original agreement Ex. PW-1/A. Since, after expiry of time period specified in agreements Ex. PW-1/A and Ex. PW-1/E, vendor himself had been requesting for extension of time coupled with the fact that the plaintiff had good relations with the vendor, there was no occasion, as such, for plaintiff to send communication specifically accepting therein the request for extension of time made by the vendor. Rather, it can safely be inferred from the communication sent by the vendor that requests, repeatedly made by him, were accepted and acted upon by the plaintiff. In the case at hand, as has been already concluded that stipulation of time, if any, in the agreements was to commence after redemption of property by vendor from the bank concerned and sale deed was fully dependant upon the redemption of property which was admittedly redeemed on 8.9.2001. There is no document, suggestive of the fact that communication, if any, was ever sent by the vendor-predecessor-in-interest of the defendants or thereafter by defendants intimating therein factum with regard to redemption of suit property to enable the plaintiff to do his part in terms of agreement in question - after having bestowed its thoughtful consideration to the pleadings, evidence vis-à-vis impugned judgments and decrees passed by both the Courts below, is of the view that both the Courts below erred in concluding that suit for specific performance having been filed by the plaintiff is/was barred by limitation. Thus, there is total mis-appreciation, misconstruction of evidence, be it ocular or documentary, adduced on record by respective parties and findings returned by the Courts below are erroneous and perverse, it sees valid reason to interfere in the concurrent findings of fact recorded by both the Courts below - appeal allowed.
|