IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
J.B. Pardiwala, J.
Patel Harji Shamji and Ors. - Appellants
Vs.
Dharmshi Meghji Shivla - Respondent
Second Appeal No. 234 of 2018
Decided On : 29-08-2018
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Order 41, Rule 31 – Order 41, Rule 31 C.P.C. provide guidelines for appellate Court as to how Court has to proceed and decide the case – Provisions should be read in such a way as to require that various particulars mentioned therein should be taken into consideration – It must be evident from judgment of appellate Court that Court has properly appreciated facts/evidence, applied its mind and decided the case considering material on record – It would amount to substantial compliance of provisions if appellate Court's judgment is based on independent assessment of relevant evidence on all important aspects of matter and findings of appellate Court are well founded and quite convincing – It is mandatory for appellate Court to independently assess evidence of parties and consider relevant points which arise for adjudication and bearing of evidence on those points – Being final Court of fact, first appellate Court must not record mere general expression of concurrence with trial Court judgment rather it must give reasons for its decision on each point independently to that of trial Court – Entire evidence must be considered and discussed in detail – Such exercise should be done after formulating points for consideration in terms of said provisions and Court must proceed in adherence to requirements of the statutory provisions. (Para 63)
J.B. Pardiwala, J.
1. This Second Appeal under Sec. 100 of the C.P.C. is at the instance of the original defendants Nos. 1 to 6 and is directed against the judgment and order dated 31st March, 2018 passed by the 9th (Ad-hoc) Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Kutch at Bhuj in the Regular Civil Appeal No. 1 of 2015 arising from the judgment and decree dated 15th December, 2014 passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Bhuj-Kutch in the Special Civil Suit No. 60 of 2000 filed by the respondent herein-original plaintiff for specific performance of contract based on an agreement of sale.
2. It appears from the materials on record that the plaintiff instituted a suit against the defendants, seeking specific performance of contract based on an agreement of sale dated 29th June, 1995, Exh. 112. The agreement of sale is with respect to the land bearing Revenue Survey No. 101, situated at village Bidada, Taluka : Mandvi, District : Kutch, admeasuring 4 acres and 9 gunthas. The suit property is recognized as "Shelorvadi". The suit property was purchased by the appellants herein-original defendants from one Mohanlal Dhanji Punja vide registered sale-deed dated 27th January, 1987. The land in question came to be converted to non-agricultural land vide order dated 6th January, 1988 passed by the Taluka Development Officer, Mandvi, Kutch. The original plaintiff decided to purchase the suit property and the defendants agreed to sale the suit property for a total sale consideration of Rs. 4,03,273/-. It is not in dispute that an amount of Rs. 10,011/- came to be paid to the defendants by the plaintiff towards the earnest money.
3. The original plaintiff received a notice dated 31st December, 1999, Exh. 125 from the defendants calling upon the plaintiff to perform his part of the obligation and get the sale-deed executed in his favour. The notice issued by the defendants to the plaintiff dated 31st December, 1999, Exh. 125, reads as under:
: NOTICE :
Reg. A.D. U.P.C.
Date : 31-12-1999
To,
Mr. Dharmashi M. Savla,
Vijya Construction, Bidada,
84, Leela Apartment, Road No. 9,
Prabhat Colony, Shantacruz (East),
MUMBAI-55
Subject :- To execute and register sale-deed in respect of the land bearing Revenue Survey No. 101, admeasuring acre 4-09 guntha, situated at moje Bidada, Taluka-Mandvi, District-Kachchh, known as Selorvadi, after converting the said land into non-agricultural purpose and creating therein 56 plots having area of 12033.02 sq.m. and total area including public purpose and roads being 17098-00 sq.m.
This notice is issued to you as instructed by my client Mr. Patel Harji Shamji and Chhaganlal Naranbhai, Mandvi-Kachchh that,
The land bearing Revenue Survey No. 101, admeasuring acre 4-09 guntha, situated at moje Bidada, Taluka-Mandvi, District-Kachchh, is under the possession and ownership of my client. The said land has been converted into non-agricultural purpose and different 56 plots have been created for the residential purpose therein. The area of land of the plots is 12033-02 sq.m. and total area of the land including public purpose and roads is 17098-00 sq.m. You have purchased the said land with absolute right from my client on 29-6-1995 by executing agreement of sale for Rs. 4,03,273/- (Four Lakh Three Thousand Two Hundred Seventy Three Only).
After implementing the said agreement of sale, you have to execute sale-deed at your expenses by paying outstanding remaining amount to my client for the said land. You do not execute sale-deed by implementing earnest money deed despite frequent reminders having been given to you. I have given reply to your letter dated 15-10-1996 within eight days wherein you have been instructed to finalize about the land. As my client has not received full payment due to your indolent attitude and delay on your part, he has to face financial difficulty. Other deal made by my client is pending due to want of money, and time has passed due to your false promise. Consequently, period of 3 years for the earnest
Bank of India v. J.A.H. Chinoy
G. Amalorpavam v. R.C. Diocese of Madurai
Gannmani Anasuya v. Parvatini Amarendra Chowdhary
Girijanandini Devi v. Bijendra Narain Choudhary
K. Prakash v. B.R. Sampath Kumar
K.B. Saha & Sons (P) Ltd. v. Development Consultant Ltd.
Kikubhai Parshottambhai Patel v. Babubhai Vallabhbhai Patel
Narinderjit Singh v. North Star Estate Promoters Ltd.
Nirmala Anand v. Advent Corpn. (P) Ltd.
Nitinkumar Laxmidas @ Lakhubhai v. Smt. Savitaben Pranshanker
P.S. Ranakrishna Reddy v. M.K. Bhagyalakshmi
S. Kaladevi v. V.R. Somasundaram
Santosh Hazari v. Purushottam Tiwari
Sarju Pershad Ramdeo Sahu v. Jwaleshwari Pratap Narain Singh
Satya Jain v. Anis Ahmed Rushdie
Shiv Kumar Sharma v. Santosh Kumari
Thakur Sukhpal Singh v. Thakur Kalyan Singh
Thakur Sukhpal Singh v. Thakur Kalyan Singh
Uttar Pradesh Co-operative Federation Ltd. v. Sunder Bros of Delhi
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.