Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Guj) 669

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
DEVAN M. DESAI, J.
Pravinbhai Nanjibhai Ramani & Ors. – Appellant
Versus
Punjabhai Ghelabhai Jadeja – Respondent
R/SECOND APPEAL NO. 264 of 2026
Decided on : 04-05-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : MR. HEMAL SHAH(6960)
For the Respondent: ORTIS LAW OFFICES(12342)

The High Court may not interfere with concurrent findings of fact in a second appeal under Section 100 unless the findings are perverse, rely on inadmissible evidence, or lack any foundation, as the scope of review is strictly limited to substantial questions of law.

Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Sections 100 and 103 - Specific performance - Appeal - Scope and ambit - Concurrent findings of fact - Re-appreciation of evidence - Interference in second appeal - The High Court is not permitted to re-appreciate evidence to reach an alternate conclusion unless the findings are perverse, based on inadmissible evidence, or arrived at without supporting evidence - The requirement of a substantial question of law is a mandatory prerequisite for invoking jurisdiction under Section 100, and its absence is fatal to the appeal - Issues regarding the nature of property and legal necessity must be properly pleaded in the lower courts and cannot be introduced for the first time in a second appeal. (Paras 8, 9, 10)

(B) Specific Relief - Agreement to sell - Readiness and willingness - Contractual obligations - Concurrent findings of fact regarding the valid execution of a registered agreement and the plaintiff's readiness and willingness to perform are not subject to interference in a second appeal - Judicial discretion under Section 100 is not to be exercised merely because a second view of the evidence is possible, particularly when concurrent findings are supported by the record. (Paras 8, 9, 11)

Facts of the case:
The dispute originated from a suit for specific performance regarding the sale of agricultural land. The plaintiff entered into a registered agreement to purchase the land, but the defendant failed to execute the final deed. The trial court decreed the suit, and the first appellate court subsequently upheld this decision. The defendants challenged the concurrent findings in the High Court, arguing that the land was ancestral, that there was a lack of legal necessity for the sale, and that the appellate court's appreciation of facts was perverse.

Findings of Court:
The court observed that the execution of the registered agreement was an admitted fact supported by multiple entries. It held that the defendants' contentions regarding the ancestral nature of the property and lack of legal necessity were not supported by the initial pleadings or evidence. Since both lower courts had thoroughly reviewed the evidence, the High Court declined to interfere with their concurrent findings, noting that no substantial question of law was presented.

Issues: Whether the appellate court's concurrent findings of fact are subject to interference under Section 100, whether the defendants can introduce new factual arguments regarding the property's ancestral nature in second appeal, and whether the finding of the trial court on the validity of the agreement was perverse or based on no evidence.

Ratio Decidendi: In light of the settled legal position, the High Court cannot substitute its opinion for that of the first appellate court, which is the final court of facts, unless the decision is marred by legal perversity, misconstruction of documents, or complete lack of evidence. When evidence has been properly weighed by both lower courts, the exercise of appellate jurisdiction is restricted to substantial questions of law.

Result: Appeal dismissed.

Table of Content
1. procedural history and factual summary of specific performance dispute. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4)
2. contentions regarding burden of proof and validity of alienation. (Para 5 , 6 , 7)
3. limited scope of interference in second appeal per sec 100 cpc. (Para 8 , 9 , 10)
4. dismissal of appeal confirming concurrent findings of fact. (Para 11 , 12)

JUDGMENT :

DEVAN M. DESAI, J.

1. The present Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter, referred to as “the Code”) by the appellants – original defendants assailing the judgment and decree dated 09.03.2026 passed by the learned 4^th Additional District Judge, Visavadar in Regular Civil Appeal No. 9 of 2024 upholding the judgment and decree dated 01.04.2024 passed by the learned Principal Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate First Class, Visavadar in Regular Civil Suit No. 39 of 2016.

2. Heard learned advocate Mr. Hemal Shah for the appellants.

3. Learned advocate for the appellants has placed on record the paper-book. The same is taken on record.

3.1. For the sake of convenience, parties are referred to as per their original status in the suit. Appellants herein are original defendants and respondent herein is original plaintiff.

4. Brief facts of the case are as under:

4.1 Defendant Nos.1 and 2 are husband and wife and defendant Nos.3 to 5 are children of defendant Nos.1 and 2. It is the case of the plaintiff that an agricultural land bearing revenue survey No.59/paiki-1/paiki-1 Acre 2-00 Gunthas, Hectre-Are-Sq.mtrs 0-80-94, situated at Moje- Dudhala, Taluka-Visavadar, District-Rajkot (Suit property) is in the ownership and possession of defendant No.1. Plaintiff by an agreement to sell without possession dated 31.12.2013, purchased the said suit property from defendant No.1 for a total consideration of Rs.3,00,000/-

Out of which Rs.2,00,000/- was paid to defendant No.1 at the time of execution of agreement to sell and remaining Rs.1,00,000/- was to be paid at the time of execution of registered sale deed i.e. on or before 30.06.2014. Parties mutually extended time for execution of sale deed till 30.06.2016. On 30.06.2016, when plaintiff asked for to execute the sale deed, defendant No.1 by one or other reason did not execute the sale deed. Hence, plaintiff was constrained to file suit for specific performance, declaration coupled with relief of permanent injunction. Defendants appeared and filed written statement vide Exhibit – 17.

Following issues were framed by the learned Trial Court:

“(1) Whether the Plaintiff proves that the Agreement to Sell without possession executed between the Plaintiff and Defendant No. 1 on 31/12/2013, registered vide Registration No. 954/2013 at the Visavadar Sub-Registrar Office, is binding upon Defendant Nos. 2 to 4 in their capacity as legal heirs of Defendant No. 1?

(2) Whether the Plaintiff proves that Defendant No. 1, acting as the Karta of a Hindu Undivided Family, sold the suit land by executing the Agreement to Sell in favor of the Plaintiff for the financial requirement for the benefit of the joint family?

(3) Whether the Plaintiff proves that they have always been, and currently are, ready and willing to pay the remaining consideration amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Only) to Defendant No. 1 as per the Sale Deed?

(4) Whether Defendant No. 1 proves that the Plaintiff obtained the signatures and attestation of the Defendant No. 1 on the Agreement to Sell through coercion, threats, and undue pressure and got the same registered?

(5) Whether the Plaintiff proves that they are entitled to the relief as prayed for?

(6) What order and decree?”

Plaintiff filed his examination in chief vide Exhibit–27, and examined one witness namely, Rasikgiri Meghnath vide Exhibit–49 and produced documentary evidence. Defendant No.1 filed his examination in chief vide Exhibit–63. After considering the material placed on record, learned Principal Civil Judge, Visavadar, vide judgment and decree dated 01.04.2024, decree

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Guj) 669

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABADDEVAN M. DESAI, J.Pravinbhai Nanjibhai Ramani & Ors. – Appellant VersusPunjabhai Ghelabhai Jadeja – Respondent R/SECOND APPEAL NO. 264 of 2026Decided on : 04-05-2026

The High Court may not interfere with concurrent findings of fact in a second appeal under Section 100 unless the findings are perverse, rely on inadmissible evidence, or lack any foundation, as the scope of review is strictly limited to substantial questions of law.

Cases Referred (1)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
DEVAN M. DESAI, J.
Pravinbhai Nanjibhai Ramani & Ors. – Appellant
Versus
Punjabhai Ghelabhai Jadeja – Respondent
R/SECOND APPEAL NO. 264 of 2026
Decided on : 04-05-2026