V PECHIMUTHU Vs. GOWRAMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal impugns an order passed by the High Court in second appeal. The High Court set aside a decree for specific performance granted to the appellant by both the Trial and the First Appellate Court. The issue is whether the High Court was justified in setting aside a concurrent finding of fact within the limits prescribed by Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code.

(2.) Let us consider the facts.

(3.) The appellant was the owner of certain property. The property was tenanted and mortgaged. By a deed dated 2nd May, 1973, the appellant sold the property to the respondent for a sum of Rs. 20,000/-. Out of this amount a sum of Rs. 15,005/- was to be paid by the respondent to the mortgagee of the property to clear the appellant's mortgage debt. The sale deed recorded that the balance amount of Rs. 4,995/- was received by the appellant from the respondent for repayment of advance rent made by the tenants of the property to enable the respondent to get vacant possession.