In a second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the High Court cannot interfere with concurrent findings of fact unless such findings are perverse, based on no evidence, or suffer from a significant error of law, as the scope of such appeal is limited to substantial questions of law.

1. The present Second Appeal has been preferred by the defendant under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, assailing the impugned judgment and decree dated 16.03.2017 passed by the learned 2nd Additional District Judge, Sakti, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) in Civil Appeal No. 32-A/2015 (Fagudas vs. Kunjram & Anr.), affirming the judgment and decree dated 30.07.2013 passed by the learned Civil Judge Class-I, Sakti, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.), in Civil Suit No. 15-A/2012 (Kunjram vs. Fagudas & Anr.), whereby the civil appeal filed by the appellant/ defendant was dismissed. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall hereinafter be referred to as per their status before the Trial Court.

2. The plaintiff instituted the suit against the defendants seeking specific performance of contract and, in the alternative, recovery of Rs. 48,200/-, pleading inter alia that the plaintiff, engaged in the business of manufacturing bricks in Village Parsadakhurd, supplied bricks to defendant No.1 for construction purposes at agreed rates, totaling Rs. 48,200/-. Owing to cordial relations, the defendant assured lump sum payment, but despite repeated demands and a subsequent promise dated 03.04.2009, no payment was made. Thereafter, in the presence of village elders, defendant No.1 executed an agreement dated 16.09.2009 undertaking to pay the amount by 24.03.2010, failing which he agreed to execute a registered sale deed of his land bearing Khasra No. 85/2 admeasuring 0.45 acre along with the house in favour of the plaintiff. However, the defendant neither paid the amount nor executed the sale deed and continued to evade performance. The plaintiff issued a registered legal notice dated 05.09.2012, which was duly received, but remained unanswered. Hence, the suit has been filed seeking specific performance of the agreement or, alternatively, recovery of the said amount.

3. Per contra, defendant No.1, in his written statement, has denied the material averments made by the plaintiff and has pleaded that the plaintiff’s alleged brick manufacturing activity at Village Parsadakhurd was illegal and had been stopped by the authorities. It is further contended that no agreement dated 16.09.2009 was ever executed by him, nor was any stamp purchased by Shyamlal Gond for such purpose, and that he never agreed to sell his land or house to the plaintiff. The alleged agreement is stated to be false and fabricated, giving no cause of action to the plaintiff. It is also pleaded that relations between the parties were strained and that the plaintiff, with the help of one Shatrudhan Lal Dhritlahare, had earlier lodged a false caste-related complaint against him on 12.11.2011. The defendant has further alleged that the plaintiff had trespassed into his house and committed assault and abuse, in respect of which a case is pending before the Court, and the suit has been filed only to pressurize him into a compromise. Hence, dismissal of the suit has been prayed for.

4. Defendant No.2/ State is a formal party to the proceedings and therefore, the matter proceeded ex parte against it.

5. After framing the issues and upon due appreciation of the oral as well as documentary evidence available on record, the learned Trial Court allowed the suit in part filed by the plaintiff, holding that the plaintiff established his claim partly over the suit land. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree dated 30/07/2013, the defendant preferred a First Appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure before the learned First Appellate Court. The learned First Appellate Court, on