Law: Code Of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Section: 100,101

Summary

The appellant filed a second appeal challenging the concurrent findings of the trial and appellate courts regarding a dispute over the specific performance of a sale agreement for a bungalow. The plaintiff (respondent) had filed a suit seeking a declaration, specific performance, damages, and injunction, claiming to be the bona fide purchaser based on a sale agreement executed through the defendant�s attorney. The trial court decreed in favor of the plaintiff, increasing the sale price due to market appreciation and directing the transfer of property upon payment of the enhanced amount. The appellate court upheld this decision, finding the attorney was duly authorized and the agreement binding on the principal. The High Court, in this second appeal, found no jurisdictional error, legal infirmity, or misreading of evidence by the lower courts. It reiterated that second appeals under Section 100 CPC are limited to substantial questions of law, not reappreciation of facts. Finding no such legal error, the High Court dismissed the appeal.

Core Points

The dispute centered on the enforcement of a sale agreement executed by an attorney on behalf of the property owner.

The trial court found the sale agreement valid and binding, increased the sale price to reflect current market value, and ordered transfer upon payment.