Dalip Singh v. Bhupinder Kaur
Background
Bhupinder Kaur sued for specific performance of a 1999 agreement under which Dalip Singh allegedly agreed to sell her property for Rs.1,50,000, with Rs.92,000 claimed to have been paid as earnest money. Both the trial court and the first appellate court dismissed her suit, finding she had failed to prove payment of the earnest money and noting suspicious circumstances around the agreement. The Punjab & Haryana High Court, in second appeal, reversed these concurrent findings based solely on reading the pleadings, without examining the evidence.
Decision Breakdown
The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in reversing two concurrent findings of fact merely by reading the plaint and written statement, without engaging with the evidence at all. It noted the defendant had explicitly denied receiving the earnest money, so there was no admission the High Court could rely on, and the trial court's detailed evidentiary analysis (including bank records showing no withdrawal matching the claimed payment) had been ignored. The Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's judgment, and restored the trial court's decree dismissing the suit.
Lesson Learnt
An appellate court in second appeal cannot overturn concurrent factual findings of lower courts simply by re-reading pleadings: it must actually engage with the evidence on record before disturbing such findings.