Holding

The High Court exceeded its jurisdiction by re‑appreciating evidence and allowing a mixed question of law and fact for the first time, and the plaintiff failed to prove readiness and willingness to perform the contract, so the High Court judgment is set aside.

Summary

The Supreme Court examined two civil appeals arising from a dispute over a 1956 agreement to sell land and rent it, where the plaintiff sought specific performance. The High Court had set aside the trial and district court judgments, dismissed the plaintiff's suit for ejectment and decreed specific performance, relying on a purported 1966 agreement and the doctrine of part performance under Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act. The Supreme Court held that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction under Section 100 of the CPC by interfering with findings of fact and by allowing a mixed question of law and fact to be raised for the first time at the second‑appeal stage. It further ruled that the plaintiff had not satisfied the requirement of readiness and willingness under Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, having produced a false document. The Court also clarified that execution of a decree does not extinguish the appellant's right to prosecute an appeal unless there is a clear waiver. Consequently, the High Court judgment was set aside and the original trial and district court decisions were restored, with the appeals allowed.

Issues considered

Whether the High Court had jurisdiction to interfere with findings of fact in a second appeal under Section 100 CPC.
Whether a plea of part performance under Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, a mixed question of law and fact, can be raised for the first time at the stage of a second appeal.
Whether the plaintiff satisfied the requirement of readiness and willingness to perform the contract under Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963.
Whether execution of a decree under appeal bars the right to prosecute the appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution.
Whether the alleged 1966 agreement and payment were genuine.

Legislation cited

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908s. 100
Constitution of Indias. Article 136
Specific Relief Act, 1963s. 16(c)
Transfer of Property Act, 1882s. 106, s. 53A

Subjects

specific performancepart performancereadiness and willingnessmixed question of law and factsecond appeal jurisdictionSection 100 CPCSection 53A TPASection 16(c) SRAexecution of decreeright to appeal

Judgment

RAM KUMAR AGGARWAL AND ANR. A
v.
THA WAR DAS (DEAD) THROUGH LRS.

AUGUST 20, 1999

[S. RAJENDRA BABU AND R.C. LAHOTI, JJ.] B

Code of Civil Procedure, I 908-Section I 00-Scope ofSecond Appeal-
Held, jurisdiction of High Court is confined to hearing on substantial question
of law-Interference with finding offact by the High Court not warranted if
it involves re-appreciation of evidence-In the present case, judgment of the C
High Court suffering from serious infirmities in as much as finding on missed
question of law and fact has been upset despite upholding the basic finding
offact recorded by the courts below and plea involving a mixed question of
law and fact has been allowed to be urged for the first time and upheld by
~~~~ D
Specific Relief Act, 1963-Section 16(c)-Readiness and willingness to
perform a contract-Held, a person who falsely alleges to have made a part
payment and seeks to substantiate the false plea by producing a false and
fabricated document, cannot be said to have been ever ready and willing to
perform the essential terms of contract which were to be performed by him- E
Plea ofpart performance-Held, not sustainable-Performance or willingness
to perform his part of the contract is one of the essential ingredients of the
plea of part performance-Further, plea of part performance raises a mixed
question of law and fact and therefore cannot be permitted to be urged for
the first time at the stage of second appeal-Transfer of Property Act, 1882- F
Section 53A.

Constitution of India, 1950-Art. 136-Right to appeal against a decree
already executed-Held, merely because the decree under appeal has been
executed for want of stay order from the superior court, the right of three
judgment debtor to prosecute the appeal is not lost without there being G
something to show that the judgement debtor had waived or consciously
given up his right of prosecuting the appeal.

Appeal-right to prosecute-Not lost merely by execution of decree
under appeal,
H
641
..__

642 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1999] SUPP. 1 S.C.R.

A On 18-7-1956, one P sold to one Ta lime factory known as "Karkhana"
situated over or adjoining the land in respect of which an agreement was
entered into between the parties for rent and eventual sale. The agreement
stipulated that T would pay rent to P@Rs. 150 per month in respect of the
land for one year and thereafter, the land would be sold to T Rs. 7,000. It
B was further stipulated that ifafter one year no sale deed was made of the land
in question, then T would pay rent after one year for three years @ Rs. 200
per month. P had to execute the sale deed if T wanted to take the land any
time after one year. If the sale deed was not executed for four years, then
T was to vacate the land and hand over the possession to P or his legal heirs.

c of theInTransfer
1969, P, after serving a demand-cum-quit notice under Section 106
of Property Act, instituted a suit against T for seeking
recovery of arrears of rent and a decree of ejectment for failure to purchase
the land. About seven month later, T instituted a suit against P seeking ....
specific performance of another agreement to sell, alleged to have been
entered into on 19-9-1996 whereunder T paid Rs. 2000 to P and P allegedly
D made a fresh promise to sell the land subject to further payment of Rs. 5000
P having expired, his sons were impleaded in his place. The two suits were
consolidated. By a common judgement dated 23-7-1975, the Additional Civil
Judge dismissed the suit filed by T and decreed the suit filed by P.

Thereafter, T preferred two appeals which were dismissed by a common
E judgment by the District Judge. Subsequent to this, T preferred two second
appeals before the High Court which were allowed by a Single Judge on 21- ~

9-1983. By the said judgement dated 21-9-83, the judgements and decrees
of the Trial Court and of the District Judge were set aside; instead the suit
filed by P was directed to be dismissed and the suit for specific performance
F filed by Twas directed to be decreed. Hence the present appeals.
,,
On behalf of the respondents, it was contended that the decree under
appeal as passed by High Court had been put to execution and sale deed in
terms of the decree had been executed and hence the appeals did not deserve ..;
to be allowed.
G
Allowing the appeals, the Court

HELD: 1.1. A perusal of the judgment of the High Court reveals
reasonin~s, strange to some extent, which are not appealing and which are
found difficult to sustain. The judgment of the High Court suffers from
H serious infirmities.
R.K. AGGARWAL v. THAW AR DAS 643
It also suffers from the vice of exercise of such jurisdiction as did not A
vest in the High Court under the law. Under Section 100 of the C.P.C. the
jurisdiction of the High Court to interfere with the judgments of the courts
below is confined to hearing on substantial question oflaw. Interference with
finding of fact by the High Court is not warranted if it involves re-appreciation
of evidence. The High Court did not frame any substantial question of law B
as contemplated by sub-section (5) of Section 100 C.P.C. It has not even
discussed any evidence. No basic finding of fact recorded by the Courts below
has been reversed, much less any reason assigned, for taking a view to the
contrary, still the finding on the question of readiness and willingness to
perform the contract which is a mixed question of law and fact has been
upset. Plea under Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, which again C
.involves a mixed question oflaw and fact has been allowed to be urged and
upheld by the High Court though the plea was not raised either before the
Trial Court or before the First Appellate Court even at the time of hearing.
(646-G; 647-G-H; 648-A, B, CJ

Panchugopal Barua and Ors. v. Umesh Chandra Goswami and Ors., D
(1997] 4 SCC 713 and Kshitish Chandra Purkait v. Santosh Kumar Purkait
& Ors., (1997) 5 SCC 438, referred to.

1.2. It is statutorily provided by section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act,
1963 that to succeed in a suit for specific performance of a contract the
plaintiff shall ever and prove that he has performed and has always been E
ready and willing to perform the essential terms of the contract which were
to be performed by him other than the terms the performance of which has
been prevented or waived by the defendant. A person who falsely alleges to
have made a part payment and also attempts at proving the plea at the stage
of the trial by producing a false and fabricated document cannot be said to p
have been ever ready and willing to perform the essential terms of contract
which were to be performed by him. The present one is not a case where a
plea as to payment was raised bona.fide but abandoned at or before the trial
for inability to prove. (648-E, F, G, H, 649-A)

1.3. Plea under Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act raises a G
mixed question oflaw and fact and therefore cannot be permitted to be urged
for the first time at the stage of second appeal. That apart, performance or
willingness to perform his part of the contract is one of the essential
ingredients of the plea of part performance. (649-A-B)

2. Merely because the decree under appeal has been executed for want H
644 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1999] SUPP. 1 S.C.R.

A of stay order from the superior court the right of the judgement debtor to
prosecute the appeal is not lost without there being something to show that
the judgement debtor had waived or consciously given up right of prosecuting
the appeal. [649-E 9 F]

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 2735-36 of
B 1985.

From the Judgment and Order dated 21.9.83 of the Allahabad High Court
in S.A.No.1124/76 and l 081 of 1976.

R.K. Jain, M.N. Krishnamani, Rajeev Singh, Ms. Ritu Singh, Ms. Ranjana
C Narain and Rajesh Prasad Singh for the Appellants.

Yashank Adhyaru and R.P. Wadhwani for the Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

R.C. LAHOTl 9 J. In Mauza Saharanpur@Jindapur of Pargana Haveli,
D Tehsil Sadar, District Gorakhpur there is an open piece of land over a part of
which or adjoining to which there is some built-up property which is a lime
factory known as 'karkhana'. It is not clear whether the 'karkhana' is situated
over the land which is the property forming subject matter of the present
proceedings or is situated by the side of it. However, as the facts stated
E shortly hereinafter would show that aspect of the matter is immaterial for the
purpose of these proceedings. It is not in dispute that on 18. 7.1956, the
'karkhana' has been transferred by way of sale by Phool Chand to Thawar
Das. On the same day another agreement was entered into between the
parties.

F The agreement is reproduced hereunder:-

"We arc Thawar Das s/o Shri Girdhari Mal r/o Mohalla Jaya
Shankar Ka Pokhra, city of Gorakhpur lst party and Phool Chand
s/o Shri Mukhram r/o Mohalla Kharayya Ka Pokhra city of Gorakhpur
Second Party. We the second party have sold all our business all
G kinds of Kark~ana and goods including the building and quarter, belt
and engine, two centigator and Lahorekhana which is situate inside
the boundary of the land to the first party for Rs. 9000. But the land
is joint. Because we the first party will carry on our business on the
land in question, therefore we the executants undertake that we will
pay Rs. 150 p.m. as rent for the land in question and will after one
H year, make a sale deed of the land in question to the second party for
R.K. AGGARWAL v. THAWAR DAS (R.C. LAHOTI, J.] 645
Rs. 7000 (half of which is Rs.3500) and if after one year no sale deed A
of the land is made of the land in question on account of any thing
on the part of the 1st party or the second party we the 1st party will
pay rent after one year for three years at the rate of Rs.200/- per year
in advance. If the first party will want to take the land after one year,
the second party will have to execute the sale deed in any event. If
the sale deed is not made for four years, we the first party will remove B
our goods from the land in question and will vacate it and the
possession will be given by the 1st party to the 2nd party or its heirs
and the second party will remain in possession for three months.
Therefore with free will and in sound stock of mind this rent deed is
written so, that it may be of use in case of need. C
Details of land situated in Mauza Saharanpur @ Jindapur, and
Qasba Pargana Haveli, Tehsil Sadar, Distt. Gorakhpur.
East Garha
West Pucca Govt. Road
D
North Garha
South Gola Togan Lal
Sd/- Thawar Das
18.7.1956
E
In the year 1969 Phool Chand after serving a demand-cum-quit notice
under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act instituted Suit No.240 of
1969 seeking recovery of arrears of rent and a decree of ejectment for failure
of Thawar Das to purchase the land and consequently the relationship of
landlord and tenant having continued to exist between them under the
agreement. About seven months after the institution of suit by Phool Chand, F
Thawar Das instituted Suit No. 137 of 1969 against Phool Chand seeking
specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 18.7.1956. One of the pleas
taken by Thawar Das was that on 19.9.1966 yet another agreement was
entered into and executed between the parties whereunder Thawar Das paid
Rs.2,000/- to Phool Chand and Phool Chand reviving the old agreement of the G
year 1956 made a fresh promise to sell the land subject to payment of
Rs.5,000/- by Thawar Das to Phool Chand. Phool Chand having expired, his
sons were impleaded in his place. Inasmuch as there are cross-suits and
cross-appeals preferred subsequently, for the sake of convenience we will
continue to refer to the parties as Thawar Das and Phool Chand; the latter
name would include his sons also upon whom his estate has devolved upon H
646 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1999] SUPP. I S.C.R.

A his death.
The two suits were consolidated. The suit filed by Thawar Das was
treated as the lead case and evidence was recorded therein. By a common
judgment dated 23rd July, 1975 the learned Additional Civil Judge dismissed
the suit filed by Thawar Das and decreed the suit filed by Phool Chand. Two
B appeals were preferred by Thawar Das which were heard and disposed of by
the District Judge by a common judgment. The learned District Judge has
dismissed both the appeals. Upon an independent evaluation of the evidence
adduced by the parties, the learned District Judge has affirmed all the findings
of fact recorded by the Trial Judge.

c It will be useful to briefly set out the findings concurrently arrived at
by the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court. It has been found that the
time was of essence of the contract for sale entered into between ~he parties
and time for performance was limited upto four years from the date of the
agreement. During these four years and even thereafter in spite of Phool
D Chand having filed the suit for ejectment after serving notice of termination
of tenancy, Thawar Das made no effort to purchase the land except filing a
suit for specific performance which was more in the nature of a counterblast
to the suit fjl~~ by Phool Chand. Thawar Das utterly failed in proving that
he was ever ready and willing to perform his part of the contract and to have
the purchase materialised. The plea raised by Thawar Das that on 19.9.1966
E there was a fresh agreement entered into between the parties reviving the old
agreement of 18. 7 .1956 and thereunder .Thawar Das had paid an amount of Rs.
2,000 to Phool Chand was utterly false and the agreement dated 19.9.1966
propounded by Phool Chand was a false and forged document. The tenancy
of Thawar Das was duly and validly terminated by a notice to quit under
F Section l 06 of the Transfer of Property Act.

Thawar Das preferred two second appeals before the High Court of
Alla\rnbad which have been heard and disposed of by a learned Single Judge.
By the judgment dated 21.9 .1983 which is impugned in these appeals by
special leave, both the appeals have been allowed. The judgments and decrees
Q of the Trial Court and of the District Judge have been set aside; instead the
~uit filed by Phool Chand has been directed to be dismissed and the suit for
specific performance filed by Thawar Das has been directed to be decreed.
A perusal of the judgment of th7 High Court reveals reasonings, strange to
some extent, which have not at al( appealed to us and which we have found
H difficult to sustain.
R.K. AGGARWAL v. THA WAR DAS [R.C. LAHOTI, J.] 647
The High Court has held that insofar as the suit land is concerned the A
name of one Kanaihalal, brother of Phool Chand was also recorded in the
revenue papers. It is only on 27 .2. l 967 when name of Phool Chand came to
be mutated in the revenue papers, the cloud cast on the title of Phool Chand
was cleared and Phool Chand became capable of transferring his title in the
land. It is therefore Phool Chand who alone must bear the blame for delay in B
performance of the agreement until 27.2.1967. The High Court has not disturbed
and rather upheld the finding arrived at by the two courts below that the
alleged agreement dated 19. 9 .1966 was a false and fabricated document and
no amount much less an amount of Rs.2,000 was paid thereunder by Thawar
Das to Phool Chand. However, in the opinion of the High Court this finding
was inconsequential because Thawar Das was prepared to pay the entire C
amount ofRs.7,000 in case his plea of payment of Rs.2,000 did not find favour
with the Court. The High Court then proceeded to note that rent initially at
the rate of Rs.150 per annum and subsequently at the rate of Rs.200 per
annum had continued to be paid by Thawar Das to Phool Chand upto 17th
July, 1965 and this conduct of Phool Chand in accepting the rent in spite of D
the expiry of four years from 18. 7.1956 indicated waiver on the part of Phool
Chand of consequences flowing from delay on the part of Thawar Das in the
performance of the contract. Phool Chand could have insisted on the
performance of contract by Thawar Das if only he would have proved his own
readiness and willingness and also competence to execute the sale deed
within the stipulated period of four years. It is to be noted that though the E
High Court has tried to find fault with Phool Chand, nowhere in its judgment
the High Court has recorded a finding that Thawar Das (the plaintiff in suit
for specific perf9rmance) was always ready and willing to perform his part of
the contract and to have the sale deed executed by Phool Chand in accordance
with the terms of the agreement dated 18.7.1956. Before the High Court on
behalf of Thawar Das reliance was also placed on a plea flowing from Section F
53A of the Transfer of Property Act and the High Court proceeded to observe
that possession of Thawar Das was in part performance of the agreement to
sell and so also Phool Chand's suit for Thawar Das's ejectment cou.ld not
have been decreed and the latter was entitled to continue and remain in
possession of the land. G
In our opinion, the judgment of the High Court suffers from serious
infirmities. It also suffers from the vice of exercise of such jurisdiction as did
not vest in the High Court under the law. Under Section I 00 of the CPC (as
amended in 1976) the jurisdiction of the High Court to interfere with the
judgments of the courts below is confined to hearing on substantial question H
648 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1999] SUPP. I S.C.R.
' I'
A of law. Interference with finding of fact by the High Court is not warranted
if it involves reappreciation of evidence see Panchugopal Barua and Ors. v.
Umesh Chandra Goswami and Ors, [1997] 4 SCC 713 and Kshitish Chandra
Purkait v. Santosh Kumar Purkait and Ors., [1997] 5 SCC 438. The High
Court did not frame any substantial questions of law as contemplated by sub-
B .section (5) of Section 100 of the CPC. It has not even discussed any evidence.
No basic finding of fact recorded by the courts below has been reversed
much less any reason assigned for taking a view to the contrary still the
finding on the question of readiness and willingness to perform the contra'tt
which is a mixed question of law and fact has been upset. Plea under Section
53A of the Transfer of Property Act which again involves a mixed question
C of law and fact has been allowed to be urged and upheld by the High Court
though there is no foundation for the same laid in the pleadings of Thawar
Das and though the plea was not raised either before the Trial Court or before
the First Appellate Court even at the time of hearing. Before us also at the
time of hearing of the appeals the learned counsel for the respondent Thawar
Das found it very difficult indeed to demonstrate availability of material on
D record whereon the findings as to readiness and willingness for performance
of his part of the contract on the part of Thawar Das and as to his possession
being available to be protected under the plea of part performance emanating
from Section 53A of Transfer of Property Act could be sustained. The suit
for specific performance filed in the year 1969, i.e, nearly nine years after the
E expiry of four years from 18.7.1956, the date of the agreement, was hopelessly
barred by delay and laches. We do not propose to enter into the question
of limitation though the plea that the suit for specific performance was barred
by time was specifically raised by Phool Chand before the Trial Court. It is
statutorily provided by Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 that to
succeed in a suit for specific performance of a contract the plaintiff shall aver
F and prove tl:~at he has performed and has always been· ready and willing to
perform the essential terms of the contract which were to be performed by him
other than the terms the performance of which has been prevented or waived
by the defendant. In the facts. and circumstances of the case raising of the
plea by Thawar Das that on 19.9.1966 there was a fresh agreement between
G the parties and he had paid Rs. 2,000 to Phool thand associated with positive
finding arrived at by the two courts below which finding has not been upset
by the High Court that the plea was false and was sought to be substantiated
by producing a false and fabricated document makes the situation worse for
Thawar Das. A person who falsely alleges to have paid Rs. 2,000 arid also
attempts at proving the plea at the stage of the trial cannot be said to have
. H been ever ready and willing to pay Rs. 7,000 which under the contract it was
R.K. AGGARWAL v. THA WAR DAS [R.C. LAHOTI, J.] 649

his obligation to pay. The present one is not a case where a plea as to A
payment was raised bonafide but abandoned at or before the trial for inability

-
t~ prove.

Plea under Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act raises a mixed
question of law and fact and therefore cannot be permitted to be urged for
the first time at the stage of second appeal. That apart, performance or B
willingness to perform his part of the contract is one of the essential ingredients

.
of the plea of part performance. Thawar Das having failed in proving such
willingness protection to his possession could not have been claimed by
reference to Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act.

For the foregoing reasons, we find the judgment of the High Court C
wholly unsustainable in law. The appeals deserve to be allowed, setting aside
the judgment of the High Court.

During the course of hearing, the learned counsel for Thawar Das
vehemently resisted the appeals by submitting that the decree under appeal D
as passed by the High court has been put to execution and sale deed in terms
of the decree has been executed and therefore the appeals do not deserve to
be allowed. We find no merit in this plea. The judgment of the High Court
was pronounced on 21.9.1983. The sale deed in compliance with the judgment
of the High Court appears to have been executed on 21.4.1984 through
intervention of the court, that is, by taking out execution of the decree. E
Petition seeking special leave to appeal along with prayer for interim relief was
... filed in the Supreme Court on 2.1.1984. On 30.9.85 leave to appeal was granted
and while directing notices to be issued to the respondents, this Court had
also directed execution of the judgment and decree of the High Court to
remain stayed if not already executed. Merely because the decree under F
appeal has been executed for want of stay order from the superior court the
right of the judgment debtor to prosecute the appeal is not lost without there
being something to show that the judgment debtor had waived or consciously
given up his right of prosecuting the appeal.

The appeals are allowed .. The judgment and decree passed by the High G
Court are set aside and instead the judgment and decree passed by the Trial
Court and as affirmed by the District Judge are restored. The appellant shall
be entitled to costs throughout i~ both th.~ appeals.

M.P. Appeals allowed.