Back
Supreme Court Of India
R.C. LAHOTI, CJI., H.K. SEMA AND B.N. SRIKRISHNA, JJ.
DULARA DEVI AND OTHERS- Appellants
Versus
MAHDEI- Respondent
Civil Appeals Nos. 1408-09 of 2005,
Decided on February 25, 2005
Civil Procedure Code, 1908, Section 100 - Specific Relief Act, 1963, Section 20 - Suit for specific performance decreed by trial court and first appellant court - Second appeal against - Summary dismissal by High Court holding that the findings of fact were concurrent and no case made out calling for interference - There are several relevant factors calling for consideration for exercise of discretion by the court in favour of or against decreeing a suit for specific performance - The same having not been considered, matter remitted back to High Court for fresh decision. [Paras 3 and 4]
ORDER
1. Leave granted.
2. A suit for specific performance of agreement to sell filed by the respondent was decreed in part. The decree was confined to sale of 1/4th share only. Both the parties preferred cross-appeals. The appeal filed by the plaintiff was allowed while the appeal filed by the defendant was dismissed. The first appellate court directed the suit to be decreed in full. The second appeal preferred by the defendant has suffered a summary dismissal by the High Court forming an opinion that the findings of fact were concurrent and, therefore, no case was made out calling for interference in exercise of second appellate jurisdiction.
3. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we are satisfied to hold that the disposal of the appeal at the hands of the High Court has not been satisfactory. There are several relevant factors calling for consideration for exercise of discretion by the Court in favour of or against decreeing a suit for specific performance which, in our opinion, ought to have received consideration by the High Court.
4. The appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment of the High Court is set aside. Instead, the appeal is directed to be restored on the file of the High Court. The High Court shall, in the first instance, hear the learned counsel for the parties so as to identify the substantial questions of law arising for decision in the appeal within the meaning of Section 100 of the Code of Civil a Procedure, 1908. If the High Court feels satisfied that there are substantial questions of law involved in the case calling for decision by the High Court then the same shall be framed and the appeal set down for hearing.
5. The parties through their learned counsel are directed to appear before the High Court on 4-4-2005.
6. No order as to the costs.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
