In Brief
The appellants purchased land by a registered sale deed but later claimed it was merely a loan security and sought specific performance of an alleged agreement to sell. The trial court accepted the registered deed as genuine and rejected the appellants' agreement. The first appellate court reversed this, accepting the appellants' position. The High Court, in second appeal, restored the trial court's judgment, finding the alleged agreement lacked material particulars, contained no mention of interest contrary to oral evidence, and was undermined by the appellants' own admissions before the Land Tribunal that the respondent was the owner. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, holding that interference was justified under Section 103 CPC as the appellate court had overlooked cogent material evidence and made findings that defied logic.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.