ANANTRAM S/O. MUNNALAL MEHDELE Vs. NARAYAN DAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is by the plaintiff which was admitted on the following substantial question of law :

(2.) THE facts, giving rise to filing of the appeal, briefly stated, are that the plaintiff filed the suit on the ground that the defendant entered into an agreement with plaintiff on 3.1.1986 for sale of suit house alongwith adjoining open land for a consideration of Rs. 3,000/-. THE plaintiff paid entire sale consideration. However, the sale-deed could not be executed as the defendant had to return to Jabalpur. It was further pleaded that the defendant had agreed to execute the sale-deed within a period of four months. It was also pleaded that the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his part of contract. However, on 26.6.1986 the plaintiff learnt that the defendant is planning to sell suit property to somebody else. Accordingly, plaintiff filed the suit seeking relief of specific performance of contract.

(3.) I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant and have perused the record. It is well settled in law that this Court in exercise of powers under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure cannot re-appreciate the evidence. It is equally well settled that where on appreciation of evidence, even if two view are possible, this Court in exercise of powers under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure would not interfere. [See : Kondiba Dagadu Kadam v. Savitribai Sopan and others, (1999) 3 SCC 722 and Veerayee Ammal v. Seeni Ammal, (2002) 1 SCC 134]. It has further been held by the Supreme Court that interference with a question of fact is not permissible. [See : Basayya I. Mathad v. Rudrayya S. Mathad and Others, (2008) 3 SCC 120]. In S. Appadurai Nadar and another v. A. Chokalinga Nadar and Another, (2007) 12 774 it has been held by the Supreme Court that in exercise of power under Section 100 the Courts should be slow in reversing the finding of fact. The finding of fact even if erroneous would not be disturbed in second appeal unless the finding is shown to be perverse and based on surmises and conjectures. [See : Kulwant Kaur and others v. Gurdial Singh Mann and others, (2001) 4 SCC 262, Hafazat Hussain vs. Abdul Majeed and others, (2001) 7 SCC 189 and Bharath Matha v. R. Vijay Rengandathan, (2010) 11 SCC 483].