SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2003 Supreme(SC) 1516

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
R.C. Lahoti, Ashok Bhan, JJ.
Arjunagounda through Lrs. - Appellants
Versus
Ashok Basavappa Basarkod and another - Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 9517 of 1996
Decided On : 28-08-2003

The plaintiff must meet a heavy onus of proving misrepresentation or fraud to set aside a compromise decree, and failure to do so will result in the dismissal of the appeal.

Headnote:

Specific Performance - Compromise Decree - Misrepresentation and Fraud - The court found that the evidence presented by the plaintiff fell short of proving misrepresentation or fraud, and upheld the compromise decree in favor of the defendants. The plaintiff failed to meet the heavy onus of proving misrepresentation or fraud, and the appeal was dismissed.

Fact of the Case:

The plaintiff filed a suit for a declaration that a compromise decree for specific performance was null and void due to misrepresentation and fraud by the defendants. The trial court decreed the suit, but the appellate court set aside the decree and directed the dismissal of the suit. The plaintiff's second appeal to the High Court was dismissed.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the evidence presented by the plaintiff did not meet the heavy onus of proving misrepresentation or fraud, and upheld the decision of the appellate court to set aside the decree and dismiss the suit.

Issues: The issues involved the validity of a compromise decree for specific performance based on allegations of misrepresentation and fraud by the defendants.

Ratio Decidendi: To set aside a compromise decree on the grounds of misrepresentation or fraud, the plaintiff must meet a heavy onus of proving specific pleadings with particulars and substantiating the averments by evidence. The plaintiff failed to meet this onus.

Final Decision: The appeal was held devoid of any merit and was dismissed, upholding the decision of the appellate court to set aside the decree and dismiss the suit.

Judgement Key Points

Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code.

The document states that the plaintiff preferred a second appeal to the High Court, which was dismissed in limine, and notes that the High Court refused to entertain the appeal as it did not involve any substantial question of law within the meaning of Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code. (!) [1000728490001]


ORDER :

R.C. Lahoti, J. - The parties are close relations. In a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell land they entered into a compromise based whereupon a decree for specific performance was passed in favour of the respondent-defendants against the appellant-plaintiff. Subsequently, the plaintiff filed a suit for a declaration that the compromise decree was null and void as having been obtained on misrepresentation and fraud played by the defendants on the plaintiff. The trial court decreed the suit. In an appeal preferred by the defendants, the decree of the trial court has been set aside and the suit filed by the plaintiff directed to be dismissed. The plaintiff preferred a second appeal which has been dismissed in limine by the High Court. The aggrieved plaintiff has come up in appeal by special leave to this Court.

2. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length. The learned counsel for the appellant laboured hard carrying the Court through pleadings and evidence adduced by the parties in the case. However, we have no other option but to agree with the finding of fact arrived at by the first appellate court that the evidence adduced by the plaintiff falls utterly short of making out a case of either misrepresentation or fraud. To substantiate a case for setting aside a compromise decree on the ground of misrepresentation or fraud heavy onus lies on the plaintiff and he has to raise specific pleadings with particulars and substantiate his averments by evidence making out a case for vitiating the decree on the grounds alleged. The plaintiff has failed in discharging his onus. No fault can be found with the finding of fact arrived at by the first appellate court. The High Court committed no error of law in refusing to entertain the appeal as the appeal did not involve any substantial question of law within the meaning of Section 100 Civil Procedure Code.

3. The appeal is held devoid of any merit and liable to be dismissed.

4. It is dismissed accordingly. No order as to the costs.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top