Supreme Court overturns High Court in property sale dispute: Dalip Singh vs. Bhupinder Kaur (2018)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: February 23, 2018
Citation: 2018 INSC 140
Judges: Madan B. Lokur J., Deepak Gupta J.

Can a High Court overturn concurrent findings of fact by lower courts without discussing the evidence? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case concerning a dispute over an agreement to sell a property. The core issue revolved around whether the High Court was justified in reversing the decisions of the trial court and the lower appellate court, which had both dismissed the plaintiff’s suit for specific performance of a contract. The Supreme Court bench comprised Justices Madan B. Lokur and Deepak Gupta, with the judgment authored by Justice Deepak Gupta.

Case Background

The case originated from a suit filed by Bhupinder Kaur (respondent-plaintiff) against Dalip Singh (appellant-defendant) seeking specific performance of an agreement to sell dated February 25, 1999. According to the plaintiff, Dalip Singh had agreed to sell his property for ₹1,50,000, and she had paid ₹92,000 as earnest money at the time of the agreement. However, Dalip Singh denied entering into any such agreement and receiving any money.

The trial court dismissed the suit, noting several suspicious circumstances surrounding the agreement. The court found that the plaintiff failed to prove that she had paid ₹92,000 to the defendant. The lower appellate court upheld the trial court’s decision, emphasizing that the defendant was an illiterate person and there was no evidence that the agreement was read out and explained to him before he signed it.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The trial court, after examining the evidence, concluded that the plaintiff had not proven the payment of ₹92,000. The court noted that the plaintiff claimed to have withdrawn this amount from the Oriental Bank of Commerce but failed to produce the bank passbook to substantiate her claim. Further, the bank witness testified that there was no transaction in the plaintiff’s account during the relevant period. The trial court also observed that the property’s value was significantly higher than the agreed sale price.

The lower appellate court concurred with the trial court’s findings, emphasizing that the defendant was illiterate and that there was no evidence that the agreement was explained to him before he signed it. The court also noted that the defendant had issued a notice within four days of the alleged agreement denying the transaction.

The High Court, in second appeal, overturned these concurrent findings of fact without discussing the evidence. The High Court based its decision solely on a comparison of the pleadings in the plaint and the written statement, concluding that the agreement to sell was executed and that the plaintiff had proven her readiness and willingness to perform the contract.

Legal Framework

The case primarily involves the concept of specific performance of a contract, which is governed by the Specific Relief Act, 1963. The plaintiff sought a decree for specific performance, compelling the defendant to fulfill his obligations under the agreement to sell. The court also considered the principles of evidence and the burden of proof in civil cases.

Arguments

Arguments of the Plaintiff (Bhupinder Kaur):

• The plaintiff argued that an agreement to sell was executed between the parties on 25.02.1999, and she had paid ₹92,000 as earnest money to the defendant.
• The plaintiff contended that she was ready and willing to perform her part of the contract and that the defendant was obligated to execute the sale deed in her favor.
• The plaintiff relied on the averments in her plaint, specifically Para 2, stating that the defendant received ₹92,000 as earnest money.

Arguments of the Defendant (Dalip Singh):

• The defendant denied the execution of the agreement to sell and claimed that he had not received any money from the plaintiff.
• The defendant pointed out that the plaintiff failed to produce any evidence to prove the payment of ₹92,000, such as bank statements or passbooks.
• The defendant emphasized that he was an illiterate person and that there was no evidence to show that the agreement was read out and explained to him before he allegedly signed it.
• The defendant highlighted that he had issued a notice within four days of the alleged agreement denying the transaction.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in a separate section. However, the core issue before the Court was:

• Whether the High Court was correct in overturning the concurrent findings of fact of the trial court and the lower appellate court, especially when the High Court did not discuss the evidence presented by the parties.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court did not cite any specific cases or legal provisions in this judgment. The court’s reasoning was based on the principles of evidence and the established practice of not overturning concurrent findings of fact by lower courts unless there is a compelling reason to do so.

Judgment

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court was primarily influenced by the fact that the High Court had overturned the concurrent findings of fact of the trial court and the lower appellate court without discussing the evidence. The High Court had based its decision solely on a misinterpretation of the pleadings. The Supreme Court emphasized that the trial court and the lower appellate court had thoroughly examined the evidence and had come to a reasonable conclusion.

The Supreme Court observed that the High Court failed to appreciate that the defendant had denied the averments made in Para 2 of the plaint. The court stated, “There was no admission by him of any of the allegations.” The Supreme Court also pointed out that the High Court did not discuss the evidence at all and erred in setting aside the concurrent findings of both the lower courts. The court emphasized that the High Court’s reasoning was “specious and cannot stand scrutiny.” The Supreme Court held that the High Court had acted improperly in overturning the concurrent findings of fact without any valid reason and stated, “We fail to understand how the High Court could come to this conclusion.”

Key Takeaways

✓ High Courts should not overturn concurrent findings of fact by lower courts without discussing the evidence.

✓ A mere comparison of pleadings in the plaint and written statement is not sufficient to overturn findings of fact.

✓ The burden of proof lies on the plaintiff to prove their case, including the payment of consideration.

Directions

The Supreme Court set aside the judgment of the High Court and restored the decree of the trial court.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that a High Court should not overturn concurrent findings of fact by lower courts without discussing the evidence. This judgment reinforces the principle that the High Court should not interfere with the factual findings of the lower courts unless there is a clear error or perversity. There is no change in the previous position of law.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal filed by Dalip Singh, setting aside the judgment of the High Court, and restored the decree of the trial court. The Supreme Court emphasized that the High Court had erred in overturning the concurrent findings of fact without discussing the evidence and misinterpreting the pleadings. This judgment reinforces the importance of respecting the factual findings of lower courts unless there is a compelling reason to overturn them.