MST. SUGANI versus RAMESHWAR DAS AND ANR.

MST. SUGANI versus RAMESHWAR DAS AND ANR.

The plaintiff fulfilled the requirements under Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, as averments and evidence of readiness and willingness were made. The suit was filed within limitation as per Article 54 of the Limitation Act. The trial and first appellate courts' factual findings in favour of plaintiff, including absence of bona fide purchase by respondents, could not be interfered with by the High Court in second appeal, as no substantial question of law was properly framed or shown. The High Court's interference was impermissible under Section 100 CPC.

Parties
Appellant: Mst. Sugani; Respondent: Rameshwar Das; Respondent: Jamuna Prasad; Defendant (deceased): Mahadeo
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
25 April 2006
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Judgment and Order of the Allahabad High Court in Second Appeal No. 2452/1984 Dated 1.9.1999
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Specific Performance, Readiness and Willingness, Limitation, Second Appeal, Bona Fide Purchaser, Bar to Relief
Property Law Contract Law Civil Procedure Specific Performance Readiness and Willingness Limitation Second Appeal Bona Fide Purchaser +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mst. Sugani

Appellant

Rameshwar Das

Respondent

Jamuna Prasad

Respondent

Mahadeo

Defendant (deceased)

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Judgment and Order of the Allahabad High Court in Second Appeal No. 2452/1984 Dated 1.9.1999

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform her part of the contract as required under Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963
  2. 2 Whether the suit for specific performance was within limitation under Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963
  3. 3 Whether defendants 2 and 3 were bona fide purchasers for value without notice

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiff fulfilled the requirements under Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, as averments and evidence of readiness and willingness were made. The suit was filed within limitation as per Article 54 of the Limitation Act. The trial and first appellate courts' factual findings in favour of plaintiff, including absence of bona fide purchase by respondents, could not be interfered with by the High Court in second appeal, as no substantial question of law was properly framed or shown. The High Court's interference was impermissible under Section 100 CPC.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Judgment and decree of the trial court as affirmed by the first appellate court stand restored.
  • High Court judgment set aside.