Case Note & Summary
The appellant (plaintiff) filed a Second Appeal against the concurrent dismissal of his suit for specific performance of an agreement for sale of a plot. The appellant and respondent (defendant) entered into an Agreement for Sale on 6 March 2012 for a total consideration of Rs.7,00,000, with Rs.6,00,000 paid as earnest money. The agreement contained contradictory clauses: one required the sale deed to be executed within 3 months, another required the defendant to first get the plot measured and boundaries fixed. The defendant sent a notice on 24 April 2013 canceling the transaction, alleging the plaintiff failed to pay the balance. The plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance, claiming he was always ready and willing. The trial court dismissed the suit, finding the plaintiff failed to prove readiness and willingness and that the contradictory clauses disentitled him to relief. The first appellate court confirmed. In the Second Appeal, the High Court held that no substantial question of law arose, as the findings were concurrent and not perverse. The court noted that the plaintiff did not pay the balance consideration or take steps to get the property measured, and the contradictory clauses made the agreement uncertain. The appeal was dismissed.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Second Appeal - Substantial Question of Law - Section 100 CPC - The High Court held that concurrent findings of fact cannot be interfered with in a second appeal unless they are perverse or based on no evidence. The court found no perversity in the findings that the plaintiff failed to prove readiness and willingness and that the agreement contained contradictory clauses. (Paras 1-19)
B) Specific Relief - Specific Performance - Readiness and Willingness - Section 16(c) Specific Relief Act, 1963 - The plaintiff must plead and prove continuous readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract. The court upheld the finding that the plaintiff failed to prove readiness and willingness as he did not pay the balance consideration or take steps to get the property measured. (Paras 10-15)
C) Contract Law - Agreement for Sale - Contradictory Clauses - The agreement contained contradictory clauses regarding the time for performance: one clause required sale deed within 3 months, another required measurement first. The court held that such contradiction disentitles the plaintiff to specific performance. (Paras 8-9)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 raises any substantial question of law warranting interference with concurrent findings of fact recorded by the courts below.
Final Decision
The Second Appeal is dismissed. The judgment and decree dated 30 November 2019 passed by the Adhoc District Judge-1, Satara in Regular Civil Appeal No.111/2016, confirming the judgment and decree dated 2 March 2016 passed by II Joint Civil Judge Senior Division, Satara in Special Civil Suit No.184 of 2014, is confirmed. Interim Application No.542 of 2022 does not survive and is disposed of.
Law Points
- Specific performance
- Readiness and willingness
- Concurrent findings of fact
- Section 16(c) Specific Relief Act
- 1963
- Section 100 CPC
- Contradictory clauses in agreement
Case Details
2024 LawText (BOM) (02) 193
Second Appeal No. 91 of 2022 with Interim Application No. 542 of 2022
Mr. Nikhil Wadikar a/w Ms. Aishwarya Jadhav i/b Mr. Nandu Pawar for the Appellant, Mr. Prashant L. Rathod for Respondent
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Civil suit for specific performance of an agreement for sale of immovable property.
Remedy Sought
The plaintiff (appellant) sought specific performance of the Agreement for Sale dated 6 March 2012, directing the defendant to execute the sale deed after receiving the balance consideration.
Filing Reason
The defendant cancelled the agreement by notice dated 24 April 2013, alleging breach by the plaintiff.
Previous Decisions
The trial court (II Joint Civil Judge Senior Division, Satara) dismissed Special Civil Suit No.184 of 2014 on 2 March 2016. The first appellate court (Adhoc District Judge-1, Satara) dismissed Regular Civil Appeal No.111/2016 on 30 November 2019, confirming the trial court's decree.
Issues
Whether the plaintiff proved his readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract?
Whether the contradictory clauses in the agreement disentitled the plaintiff to specific performance?
Whether the concurrent findings of fact are perverse or based on no evidence?
Submissions/Arguments
Appellant argued that he was always ready and willing to pay the balance consideration and execute the sale deed, but the defendant failed to get the property measured and boundaries fixed as agreed.
Respondent argued that the plaintiff failed to pay the balance consideration within the stipulated time and that the agreement contained contradictory clauses, making it unenforceable.
Ratio Decidendi
In a second appeal under Section 100 CPC, the High Court cannot interfere with concurrent findings of fact unless they are perverse or based on no evidence. The plaintiff in a suit for specific performance must plead and prove continuous readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract. Contradictory clauses in an agreement for sale regarding the time for performance disentitle the plaintiff to specific performance.
Judgment Excerpts
The Agreement for Sale contained contradictory clauses. While Clause 2 provided that the sale deed was to be executed within 3 months, Clause 4 provided that the Defendant would get the plot measured and boundaries fixed and thereafter the sale deed would be executed.
The plaintiff failed to prove his readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract. He did not pay the balance consideration of Rs.1,00,000/- nor did he take any steps to get the property measured.
The concurrent findings of fact recorded by the courts below are not perverse and do not call for interference in this Second Appeal.
Procedural History
The plaintiff filed Special Civil Suit No.184 of 2014 for specific performance. The trial court dismissed the suit on 2 March 2016. The plaintiff appealed to the District Court, Satara, which dismissed Regular Civil Appeal No.111/2016 on 30 November 2019. The plaintiff then filed the present Second Appeal No.91 of 2022 in the Bombay High Court, which was dismissed on 12 February 2024.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Section 100
- Specific Relief Act, 1963: Section 16(c)
