ARJUNAGOUNDA Vs. ASHOK BASAVAPPA BASARKOD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The parties are close relations. In a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell land they entered into a compromise based whereupon a decree for specific performance was passed in favour of the respondent-defendants against the appellant-plaintiff. Subsequently, the plaintiff filed a suit for a declaration that the compromise decree was null and void as having been obtained on misrepresentation and fraud played by the defendants on the plaintiff. The trial court decreed the suit. In an appeal preferred by the defendants, the decree of the trial court has been set aside and the suit filed by the plaintiff directed to be dismissed. The plaintiff preferred a second appeal which has been dismissed in limine by the High Court. The aggrieved plaintiff has come up in appeal by special leave to this Court.

(2.) We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length. The learned counsel for the appellant laboured hard carrying the Court through pleadings and evidence adduced by the parties in the case. However, we have no other option but to agree with the finding of fact arrived at by the first appellate court that the evidence adduced by the plaintiff falls utterly short of making out a case of either misrepresentation or fraud.

(3.) To substantiate a case for setting aside a compromise decree on the ground of misrepresentation or fraud heavy onus lies on the plaintiff and he has to raise specific pleadings with particulars and substantiate his averments by evidence making out a case for vitiating the decree on the grounds alleged. The plaintiff has failed in discharging his onus. No fault can be found with the finding of fact arrived at by the first appellate court. The High Court committed no error of law in refusing to entertain the appeal as the appeal did not involve any substantial question of law within the meaning of Sec. 100 Civil Procedure Code.