Parminder Singh v. Gurpreet Singh
Background
Two brothers were in dispute over an agreement dated 2 July 1995 under which the younger brother (appellant) was to sell his share of ancestral land to the elder brother (respondent) for Rs. 5 lakhs, with Rs. 4 lakhs allegedly paid upfront. When the appellant did not execute the sale deed, the respondent sued for specific performance; the appellant claimed the agreement was forged and that he had only signed a blank paper for an unrelated purpose.
Decision Breakdown
The Trial Court, the first Appellate Court, and the High Court (in second appeal) all concurrently held that the agreement was genuine, that the respondent was ready and willing to perform his part, and that the appellant had breached the contract, and all three ordered specific performance. The Supreme Court held that such concurrent findings of fact, reached after appreciation of evidence by three courts, are binding on it under Article 136 of the Constitution and are not open to re-appreciation in the absence of perversity, absence of evidence, or an error of law. Finding none of these vitiating factors, the Court declined to disturb the findings and dismissed the appeal.
Lesson Learnt
When three successive courts have concurrently and consistently found the same facts after weighing the evidence, the Supreme Court will ordinarily not re-open those findings in an appeal by special leave: litigants should not expect the apex court to re-try factual disputes already settled below.