Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose from a suit for specific performance filed by the appellant concerning an agreement dated 29th May, 1976, for the sale of land. The appellant claimed readiness and willingness to perform the contract, while the respondent failed to pay the balance amount or execute the sale deed. The trial court decreed the suit on 30th June, 1988, directing the respondent to pay a specified amount with interest and to execute the sale deed within three months. The respondent appealed against this decree but did not comply with the trial court's order. Subsequently, the appellant sought rescission of the contract under Section 28 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, which the trial court granted on 3rd August, 1993, ordering the respondent to restore possession of the property. The respondent's appeal against the trial court's decree was dismissed on 29th September, 1997, confirming the findings of the trial court. However, the High Court later allowed the respondent's second appeal, altering the trial court's decree regarding interest and directing the appellant to hand over possession to the respondent. The Supreme Court found that the High Court had erred in interfering with the concurrent findings of fact established by the lower courts, which had confirmed the appellant's readiness to perform the contract and the respondent's failure to act. The Supreme Court held that the trial court's order of rescission was final due to the lack of challenge by the respondent and restored the trial court's decree, thereby allowing the appeal. No costs were awarded.
Headnote
A) Specific Relief - Rescission of Contract - High Court's Interference - Specific Relief Act, 1963, Section 28 - The High Court erred in setting aside the trial court's decree regarding rescission of the contract without finding the lower courts' findings perverse. The trial court's order to rescind the contract became final due to no challenge by the respondent, thus the High Court's direction to restore possession was unwarranted. Held that the trial court's decree was to be restored (Paras 3-4).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court erred in interfering with the concurrent findings of fact regarding the specific performance of the contract.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's judgment, and restored the trial court's decree, confirming the rescission of the contract and the direction for possession.
Law Points
- Specific performance
- rescission of contract
- readiness and willingness
- concurrent findings of fact
- interference by appellate court
