Second Appellate Court Cannot Interfere With Factual Finding Of Lower Courts: Allahabad High Court Reiterates

Recently, the Allahabad High Court has reiterated that reappreciation of evidence by a Second Appellate Court is impermissible.

Justice Kshitij Shailendra held that

“…even when two views are possible, out of which one view has been taken by the courts after appreciating evidence on record, second Appellate Court would not substitute that view by its own view. Re-appreciation of evidence to arrive at a different conclusion is quite restricted in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure…”

Case Background

Plaintiff-respondent filed a suit for specific performance of a sale agreement, which was decreed in his favour. The defendant-appellant filed an appeal against the same, which he lost. Aggrieved, he filed the present second appeal before the High Court.

Counsel for appellant contended that the cash payment mentioned in the agreement could not have proved to have been made. It was submitted that the land forming the agreement was not a specified portion, thus invalidating it. Appellant stated that the submissions made by the witnesses were also inconsistent and that the affidavit submitted by PW-1 would not be accepted till it was given in the witness box. Further submissions included the contention that no witnesses could attest to the payment mentioned in the agreement.

It was argued that the onus to prove the agreement's validity was on the plaintiff, not the suit's defendant.

Per contra, counsel for respondent submitted that the agreement for sale, having been registered, was a valid document. It was argued that the advance money was received in the presence of witnesses and had the endorsement of the Sub-Registrar, proving its legitimacy. Further, it was submitted that as per the findings of the lower courts, the argument advanced by the appellant about the cash payment not being made, did not hold any weight.

High Court Verdict

The Court observed that the execution of the sale deed was valid given that the defendant had also admitted the same. It observed that the Sub-Registrar had in fact endorsed the payment mentioned in the agreement. Further, it was observed that the property in question had been divided and thus no requirement arose for a contract between the co-sharers of the land.

The Court held that under Sections 58, 59 and 60 of the Registration Act, 1908, once the Sub-Registrar had made endorsements, there would be no doubt about the validity of the sale agreement. It was held that under Sections 91 and 92 of the Evidence Act, 1872, there arose a scope of rebuttal. However, the Court did not find anything on record that was sufficient to rebut the said proceedings.

While examining the judgment of the Apex Court in Ameer Trading Corporation Ltd. Vs Shapoorji Data Processing Ltd , the Court observed that the aforesaid had been meted at a time when the C.P.C. had not been amended, and even the state amendments in the State of U.P. had not been taken into account. Further, in the case of Kishan Chand and others vs Dr. Kailash Chandra Gupta and others, the Court examined Section 22 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. It held that the Section did not bar any suit against specific performance.

“A bare perusal of Section 22 would show that it does not refer to any bar against the suit for specific performance. The provision only says that no such relief would be granted, unless it has been specifically claimed. In the present case, such a question would not arise at all as neither any relief in terms of Section 22(1) (a) of the Specific Relief Act was claimed nor has been granted by the courts below,” held the Court.

The Court held that the facts of Kishan Chand were also entirely distinct from the matter at hand. It was held that once the execution of the agreement was admitted to the appellant, he could not depend on it for his own purposes.

The Court held that in its Second Appellate Jurisdiction, it could not interfere with the fact-finding of the lower court.

“In Harjeet Singh v. Amrik Singh (2005) 12 SCC 270, the Apex Court, with anguish, observed that the High Court had no jurisdiction to interfere with the findings of fact arrived at by the trial Court and the lower appellate Court regarding readiness and willingness to perform part of contract in its jurisdiction under Section 100 C.P.C.”

Accordingly, the Court held that there was no perversity in the views taken by the lower courts to warrant interference by it in its second appellate jurisdiction.

The second appeal was dismissed.

Case Title: Mahavir Prasad v. Balveer Singh And Anr. [SECOND APPEAL No. - 540 of 2024]

Click Here To Read/Download Order