Perverse On The Face Of The Record: SC Sets Aside Concurrent Judgments Of High Court, First Appellate Court & Trial Court To Dismiss A Civil Suit
The Supreme Court set aside the judgments of the High Court, First Appellate Court, and the Trial Court to dismiss a civil suit.
The Court reiterated that the jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution should not be exercised unless the findings suffer from perversity or are based on omission to consider vital evidence.
The Court was deciding a civil appeal filed against the judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court by which the second appeal of the defendant was dismissed and the judgment of the Additional District Judge was affirmed.
The two-Judge Bench comprising Justice P.S. Narasimha and Justice Sandeep Mehta observed, “It is trite law that jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India should not be exercised unless the findings on facts recorded by the Courts below suffer from perversity or are based on omission to consider vital evidence available on record.”
AOR Ankit Goel represented the appellant/defendant while Advocate Amol Chitale represented the respondents/plaintiffs.
Brief Facts -
The plaintiff had filed a suit in the Trial Court seeking a decree for specific performance of an agreement to sell in respect of an agricultural plot of land. Besides the relief of specific performance, the plaintiff sought permanent injunction for restraining the defendant from alienating the land and dispossessing the plaintiff from the same. In the alternative, the plaintiff sought relief of recovery of Rs. 19,00,000/- including the amount of Rs. 16,00,000/- paid as earnest money on the date of execution of the disputed agreement along with the damages to the tune of Rs. 3,00,000/-.
The Trial Court allowed the suit partly, directing the recovery of Rs. 16,00,000/- and the interest accrued thereupon from the appellant-defendant by way of alternative relief of recovery while denying the prayer of specific performance sought for by the respondent-plaintiff. The First Appellate Court dismissed the civil appeal preferred by the appellant-defendant and upheld the judgment and decree passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) in a civil suit filed by the respondent-plaintiff. The High Court dismissed the second appeal as well.
The Supreme Court in view of the above facts, noted, “The scope of an appeal by special leave under Article 136 of the Constitution of India against concurrent findings is well-established.”
The Court further said that the affidavit by way of examination-in-chief of the respondent-plaintiff, a very significant fact can be culled out.
“The respondent-plaintiff did not even make a whisper in his deposition affidavit that when he proceeded to the office of the Sub-Registrar on 19th September, 2008, he was carrying the balance sale consideration with him. Furthermore, it is not the case of the respondent-plaintiff that he ever offered the balance sale consideration in terms of the disputed agreement to the appellant-defendant at any point of time either before 19th September, 2008 or on 19th September, 2008, when the respondent-plaintiff appeared before the Sub-Registrar”, it added.
The Court also noted that the respondent-plaintiff admitted that he did not seek permission from his department before entering into the agreement for purchase of property having high value and it is not the case of the respondent-plaintiff that he and the appellant-defendant were on such close terms that he would readily agree to give cash loan to the appellant-defendant without any security.
“The factors enumerated above, are sufficient for this Court to conclude that the entire case of the respondent-plaintiff regarding the execution of the disputed agreement; the alleged payment of Rs. 16,00,000/- in cash to the appellant-defendant on 7th May, 2007 and the alleged appearance of the respondent-plaintiff in the office of the Sub-Registrar in the purported exercise of getting the sale deed executed in terms of the disputed agreement is nothing but a sheer piece of fraud and concoction”, it said.
The Court, therefore, concluded that there cannot be any escape from the conclusion that the judgment and decree rendered by the Trial Court, judgment of the First Appellate Court, and the judgment of the High Court suffer from perversity on the face of the record and hence, the same cannot be sustained.
Accordingly, the Apex Court allowed the appeal and quashed the impugned judgments.
Cause Title- Lakha Singh v. Balwinder Singh & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 744)
Appearance:
Appellant: AOR Ankit Goel, Advocates Nikhil Sharma, and Sahil Patel.
Respondents: AOR Sunil Kumar Jain, Advocates Amol Chitale, Susheel Joseph Cyriac, Nirnimesh Dube, Ankur S. Kulkarni, Uditha Chakravarthy, Priya S. Bhalerao, Varun Kanwal, Divyansha Gajallewar, Debdeep Banerjee, Reeta Chaudhary, and Rashika Swarup.
