High Court Cannot Interfere With Concurrent Findings Of Lower Courts But It Is Not An Absolute Rule: Punjab & Haryana HC
The Punjab and Haryana High Court observed that the High Court cannot interfere with the concurrent findings of the lower courts but it is not an absolute rule and there are some exceptions for such interference.
The Court observed thus in appeals filed against the concurrent findings of the lower courts in a suit seeking decree for specific performance in respect of a property.
A Single Bench of Justice Deepak Gupta held, “To conclude, legal principles, which can be culled out are that though High Court is not to interfere with the concurrent findings of the Courts below but it is not an absolute rule. There are some exceptions for interference by the High Court, when it is found that:
• When finding of fact by the Courts below is vitiated by non-consideration of material evidence or erroneous approach.
• The Courts have drawn wrong inferences from the proved facts by applying the law erroneously.
• The Courts have wrongly cast the burden of proof.
• When decision is based upon no evidence, which would mean that not only there is total dearth of evidence but also, where is the evidence taken as a whole, is not reasonably capable of supporting the finding.
• When the judgment of the final Court of fact is based on misinterpretation of documentary evidence or on consideration of inadmissible evidence or ignoring material evidence.”
Senior Advocates Vijay Kumar Jindal and Amit Jain represented the appellants while Senior Advocates S.K. Garg Narwana and Sumeet Mahajan represented the respondents.
Facts of the Case -
A suit was filed by the plaintiffs (respondents) seeking decree for specific performance in respect of the property in dispute and the same was decreed by the Trial Court. The appeal filed by the defendants was dismissed by the First Appellate Court and out of four defendants impleaded in the suit, three of them filed two separate appeals against the concurrent findings of the lower Courts. As per the plaintiffs’ case, all the five owners agreed to sell the suit property to the plaintiff no.1 for total consideration of Rs. 12 lakhs vide an agreement. The property was already mortgaged with State Bank of India (SBI) and the last date for execution and registration of the sale deed was agreed to be December 25, 1994.
Prior to the aforesaid target date, the sellers were required to obtain ‘No Objection Certificate’ (NOC) from the Estate Officer and also the income tax clearance certificate from the respective departments. It was agreed that in case, sellers failed to get the Barsati portion vacated from the tenant, then they will be entitled to receive total sale price of ₹10 lakhs i.e. the sale price was to be reduced by ₹2 lakh. It was alleged that the defendants failed to perform their part of contract and rather, they were trying to dispose of the suit property. Hence, the suit was initiated.
The High Court in the above context of the case, elucidated, “… when the evidence on record in the present case is analysed, it is found that courts below not only wrongly cast the burden of proof on defendants to prove fabrication/fraud in respect of agreement to sell Ex.P1, the execution of which the plaintiffs as propounder failed to prove, the courts below have even drawn wrong inferences from the proved facts by applying the law erroneously. The judgment of trial court and also of the first appellate court as final Court of fact, is based on misinterpretation of documentary evidence or on consideration of inadmissible evidence and by ignoring material evidence. It is found that the evidence taken as a whole, is not reasonably capable of supporting the findings returned by the courts below.”
The Court said that as a general principle, a suit cannot be defeated by the reason of mis-joinder or the non-joinder of the necessary parties and that Court may decide the controversy in question so far as the rights and the interest of the parties actually before it, are concerned. The Court added that, however, this general principle is not applicable, when it is a case of non-joinder of such a necessary party, in whose absence the controversy cannot be decided and the main relief claimed in the suit cannot be granted.
“This is true that escalation in prices cannot be a ground to decline the relief of specific performance nor the hardship on the part of vendors be a ground but still the Court is required to look into all the facts and circumstances in order to see as to whether the equity lies in favour of the plaintiff to grant the relief of specific performance. After all, the equitable relief is to be granted and the discretion is to be exercised based upon the sound judicial principles”, it noted.
Furthermore, the Court observed that the plaintiffs don’t deserve the discretion of specific performance for following main reasons, amongst others –
1. Agreement to sell (Ex.P1) is not proved to have been executed by Jokhi Ram and Ramesh. Rather, the signatures of Jokhi Ram and Ramesh on the agreement to sell (Ex.P1) are proved to be forged. Even the thumb impressions of Smt. Chawli Devi on the agreement are not proved beyond doubt.
2. When a party does not approach the Court with clean hands, it is not entitled for the discretionary relief like specific performance by the Court. Plaintiffs having approached the Court on the basis of a forged document, cannot claim the relief for specific performance even in respect of the part of the suit property.
3. Suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties, as legal heirs of Jokhi Ram, one of the co-owners of the suit property have not been impleaded as party defendants.
“Looking into the entirety of the facts and circumstances, which includes the conduct of the plaintiffs, this Court is not inclined to grant the relief of specific performance to the plaintiffs, even in respect of any part of the suit property. It is also held that the Courts below committed grave error in granting the said relief of specific performance to the plaintiffs, by ignoring the material evidence on record”, it also said.
The Court, therefore, held that the judgment passed by the lower courts cannot be sustained in the eyes of law and that the plaintiffs- respondents have not been able to make out a case for grant of specific performance.
Accordingly, the High Court partly allowed the appeals and set aside the impugned judgments and decrees.
Cause Title- Lakhpat Rai and Anr. v. J.D. Gupta and Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024:PHHC:136478)
Appearance:
Appellants: Senior Advocates Vijay Kumar Jindal, Amit Jain, Advocates Akshay Jindal, Pankaj Gautam, and Anupam Mathur.
Respondents: Senior Advocates S.K. Garg Narwana, Sumeet Mahajan, Advocates Saksham Mahajan, Shrey Sachdeva, Rabani Attri, Shruti Singla, Ramandeep Kaur, Sharan Sethi, and Naveen Gupta.
