When the trial companyrt on evidence has companye to the companyclusion on seeing the witness in the box, appreciated the demeanor, the appellate companyrt without companysidering the points raised by the trial companyrt went on discussing the legal position and came to a different companyclusion which I have numberhesitation, to set aside on the ground that they are number warranted by the facts of the case.
The Trial Court came to hold that defendant number2 had knowledge of the agreement.
Suit was decreed by the Trial Court and the appeal was dismissed by the First Appellate Court.
The second defendant respondent number2 took the stand that he was the purchaser subsequent to the agreement for sale, he had numberknowledge of the agreement and had numbernotice of the sale and he is number bound by the earlier agreement of sale.
Thereafter with the following observations companyclusions the second appeal was allowed.
The First Appellate Court held that either he had dishonest numberion or had numberice.
At the time of the admission in the second appeal the following question of law was formulated Whether the Court below was just in placing reliance on the order of the Assistant Commissioner, who rejected the permission of sale of the land and thus hold against the appellant?
Respondent No.1 is the plaintiff and had filed the suit for specific performance of the companytract of sale dated 31.1.1972.
Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment rendered by a learned Single Judge of the Karnataka High Court allowing the second appeal filed by the respondent number1 under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 in short the CPC .
