M.B. Vishwanath, J.@mdashArguments of the learned Counsel for the appellant have been heard. The respondent since deceased by his L.Rs. have been served with notices, but they have remained absent.
2. Taking into consideration the circumstances of the case, this Court acting under Order 1, Rule 10-A of the CPC requested the young Advocate Sri S. Srinivas Raghawan, to assist the Court.
3. At the outset, it should be stated that the learned Advocate for the respondents gave his excellent assistance.
4. The appellant is the plaintiff and the respondent (since deceased by his L.Rs) is the defendant.
5. The appellant-plaintiff filed the suit for Specific Performance of the contract or in the alternative for refund of advance sale consideration of Rs. 2,000/- along with future interest at 18% p.a.
6. The Trial Court dismissed the suit.
7. The appellant-plaintiff filed the appeal. The First Appellate Court dismissed the appeal. So the appellant-plaintiff filed this Regular Second Appeal u/s 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
8. The Trial Court came to the conclusion that the agreement to sell Ex. P-2 has been obtained by fraud and mis-representation. The Trial Court also came to the conclusion that the agreement was void because of vagueness. The First Appellate Court contradicted itself. The First Appellate Court states in its judgment that the plea of the respondents-defendants that the agreement of sale was taken on fraud can''t be accepted. In the same breath (paragraph 11) the First Appellate Court states, in its opinion the reasons given by the Trial Court do not require to he interfered.
9. The First Appellate Court has agreed with the Trial Court that Ex. P-2 is void because of vagueness. From what is stated above, it is abundantly clear, the Courts below have come to the conclusion that the appellant-plaintiff is not entitled to the relief of the discretionary relief of specific performance.
10. The conclusions reached by the Courts below are based on evidence. I do not find anything illegal or perverse.
11. Accordingly the regular second appeal is not admitted, and is rejected at the admission stage.
The learned Advocate Sri S. Srinivas Raghawan, as I have already stated, gave very good assistance. His fee (Honorarium) is fixed at Rs, 1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only).
The office shall take steps to disburse the honorarium to the learned Advocate.
