Specific Relief Act, 1963 — Section 16(c)
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — Section 100 — Second Appeal — Scope
Specific performance — Registered possessory agreement of sale — Oral demand — Absence of written notice — Effect — Third party not entitled to challenge decree — Findings of fact — Interference in second appeal — When permissible.
A. Specific Performance — Prior notice — Oral demand — Sufficiency
A suit for specific performance need not fail merely for want of issuance of written notice prior to institution of suit, where oral demand is pleaded and proved, and the vendor and his legal representatives do not dispute execution of agreement or receipt of consideration.
(Paras 18–21)
B. Section 100 CPC — Interference with findings of fact
High Court in second appeal cannot interfere with concurrent or appellate findings of fact unless such findings are:
• contrary to mandatory provisions of law, or
• opposed to settled legal position, or
• based on inadmissible evidence, or
• recorded without evidence.
(Paras 16, 31)
C. Registered agreement of sale — Certified copy — Admissibility
Where original registered agreement of sale is lost and certified copy obtained from Sub-Registrar is produced, such document is admissible in evidence, particularly when execution is not disputed by executant or his legal representatives.
(Para 22)
D. Possessory agreement of sale — Delivery of possession
Recital in registered agreement showing delivery of possession, coupled with evidence such as electricity service connection obtained in the purchaser’s name soon thereafter, establishes possession pursuant to agreement of sale.
(Paras 19, 23)
E. Rights of third party — Stranger to contract
A person who is not a party to the agreement of sale has no locus to challenge:
• passing of consideration,
• validity of agreement, or
• decree of specific performance granted against contracting parties.
(Paras 17, 22, 28–30)
F. Tenant — Estoppel against denial of title
A person claiming to be a tenant under the vendor is estopped from questioning the title of the landlord and cannot dispute alienation made by such landlord.
(Para 26)
G. Permissive possession — Eviction
Where possession of defendant is found to be permissive, and plaintiff is held entitled to specific performance, such permissive occupant is liable to be evicted after execution of sale deed.
(Paras 25, 30)
H. Non-examination of parties — Adverse inference
Where parties who alone could dispute execution of agreement remain ex parte and do not enter witness box, presumption arises that the case pleaded against them is correct.
(Para 20)
I. Misleading pleadings — Suppression of facts
Where a party takes inconsistent stands regarding ownership and execution of documents, such conduct amounts to misleading the Court and disentitles such party from equitable relief.
(Paras 28–29)
FINAL HOLDING
Second appeal dismissed.
Judgment and decree of First Appellate Court confirmed.
No substantial question of law involved.
(Paras 31–32)
ANALYSIS OF FACTS
1. Nature of dispute
• Suit property situated at Pankevari Street, Kakinada.
• Plaintiff claimed rights under registered possessory agreement of sale dated 09-03-1979.
• Entire sale consideration of Rs.5,000/- paid on date of agreement.
• Possession delivered under the agreement.
2. Plaintiff’s case
• Vendor: Koppisetty Suryanarayana, father of defendants 1 & 2.
• Agreement registered before Sub-Registrar.
• Vendor promised to execute sale deed later but died at Hyderabad.
• Defendants 1 & 2 are sole legal representatives.
• Defendant No.3 is plaintiff’s brother, permitted to occupy house temporarily after borrowing Rs.10,000/-.
• Amount repaid, but defendant No.3 failed to vacate.
3. Defence of defendant No.3
• Denied agreement of sale.
• Claimed tenancy under vendor.
• Alleged plaintiff never in possession.
• Took inconsistent pleas regarding ownership of property.
4. Findings of Trial Court
• Suit dismissed.
• Agreement and entitlement not accepted.
5. Findings of First Appellate Court
• Agreement genuine and enforceable.
• Plaintiff entitled to specific performance.
• Defendant No.3 in permissive possession.
• Decree granted against defendants 1 & 2.
6. Second Appeal
Filed only by defendant No.3, who:
• was not party to agreement,
• was not decree-holder nor judgment-debtor under specific performance decree.
ANALYSIS OF LAW APPLIED
1. Scope of Section 100 CPC
The Court reiterated settled law:
• Second appeal lies only on substantial questions of law.
• Re-appreciation of facts is impermissible.
(Para 16)
2. Prior notice before suit
Relying on Baddam Prathap Reddy v. Chennadi Jalapathi Reddy, Court held:
• Oral demand is legally permissible.
• Plaintiff specifically pleaded oral demand during vendor’s lifetime and after his death.
• Defendants 1 & 2 never disputed such demand.
(Paras 18–21)
3. Proof of agreement
• Agreement was registered.
• Original lost in cyclone — certified copy produced (Ex.A-1).
• Execution never disputed by executant or his legal heirs.
(Para 22)
4. Proof of possession
• Recitals in Ex.A-1 show delivery of possession.
• Electricity service connection in plaintiff’s name from 1979 corroborated possession.
(Paras 19, 23)
5. Ownership objection
Even assuming property was joint family property:
• Father, as manager, alienated property.
• Sale consideration received.
• Legal heirs never challenged alienation.
(Para 24)
6. Rights of defendant No.3
• Not a party to contract.
• Claimed tenancy but failed to prove it.
• Took contradictory stands in pleadings and evidence.
• Could not question consideration or validity of agreement.
(Paras 26–29)
7. Permissive possession
Evidence established:
• Defendant No.3 is brother of plaintiff.
• Occupation was permissive, not contractual tenancy.
• Once plaintiff entitled to sale deed, permissive occupant liable to vacate.
(Paras 25, 30)
8. No substantial question of law
The High Court held:
• Appellate Court judgment based on evidence.
• No perversity, illegality or legal infirmity shown.
• Questions framed did not survive for adjudication.
(Paras 31–32)
RATIO DECIDENDI
The core legal principle laid down is:
A third party who is not a party to a registered agreement of sale has no locus to challenge the decree of specific performance passed against the contracting parties, particularly when execution of the agreement, passing of consideration and delivery of possession are undisputed by the executant and his legal representatives; and in such circumstances, the High Court under Section 100 CPC cannot interfere with findings of the First Appellate Court in the absence of any substantial question of law.
