Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose from a suit for specific performance of a contract dated 30.7.1977 and cancellation of a sale deed dated 14.5.1980, filed by the plaintiffs against the appellant and others. The plaintiffs claimed to have paid an advance of Rs. 2,500/- for a total consideration of Rs. 10,000/-, with a balance of Rs. 7,500/- due at the execution of the sale deed. The appellant contested the suit, asserting that the plaintiffs were not willing to execute the sale deed despite being requested. The trial court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, ordering specific performance and cancellation of the sale deed. However, the first Appellate Court reversed this decision, citing changes in the land description and area due to consolidation proceedings, and concluded that the plaintiffs were not ready and willing to perform their part of the contract. The plaintiffs appealed to the High Court, which held that the changes were minor and did not affect the enforceability of the contract. The High Court's judgment was based on the premise that the first Appellate Court had erred in its findings. The appellant contended that the High Court could not have allowed the appeal without addressing the readiness and willingness issue, which was not formulated as a question. The court noted that while the High Court could address unformulated substantial questions, it failed to provide reasons for doing so in this case. The Supreme Court found that the High Court's judgment was flawed due to the lack of a formulated question regarding the plaintiffs' readiness and willingness, leading to the appeal's success and the High Court's judgment being set aside. The court emphasized the importance of addressing all relevant issues in appeals and the necessity for vigilance from the parties involved.
Headnote
A) Specific Performance - Readiness and Willingness - Requirement of Formulated Questions - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Section 100(5) - The High Court failed to formulate a question regarding the plaintiffs' readiness and willingness to perform their part of the contract, which was essential for adjudication. The appeal was allowed on the ground that the High Court could not set aside the first Appellate Court's judgment without addressing this crucial aspect. Held that the absence of a formulated question regarding readiness and willingness invalidated the High Court's decision (Paras 1-4).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court was justified in allowing the second appeal without formulating a question regarding the plaintiffs' readiness and willingness to perform their part of the contract.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment of the High Court, emphasizing the necessity of formulating all relevant questions in appeals.
Law Points
- Specific performance
- readiness and willingness
- change in property description
- substantial question of law
- non-consideration of evidence
