Case Note & Summary
The appellant, H.B. Shashikumar, was the defendant in a suit for specific performance filed by the original plaintiff, Mohammed Adil (since deceased, represented by legal representatives). The suit was in respect of an agreement of sale dated 18.06.2012 for a suit schedule property for a total consideration of Rs.1,90,000/-. The plaintiff paid an advance of Rs.1,00,000/- on the date of agreement and agreed to pay the balance of Rs.90,000/- at the time of registration. The defendant failed to execute the sale deed despite the plaintiff's readiness and willingness. The plaintiff issued a legal notice and filed O.S. No. 76/2013. The trial court decreed the suit directing the defendant to execute the sale deed upon receiving the balance amount. The defendant's appeal (R.A. No. 25/2020) was dismissed by the Senior Civil Judge and Principal JMFC, Tarikere. The defendant then filed the present second appeal under Section 100 CPC. The High Court heard the matter and reserved judgment on 18.07.2025, pronouncing it on 25.07.2025. The court noted that the concurrent findings of fact regarding the execution of the agreement, payment of advance, and the plaintiff's readiness and willingness were based on evidence. The appellant failed to raise any substantial question of law. The court held that there was no perversity or error of law in the impugned judgments and dismissed the second appeal, confirming the decree for specific performance.
Headnote
A) Specific Relief Act, 1963 - Section 16(c) - Readiness and Willingness - Plaintiff must prove continuous readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract - In the present case, plaintiff examined himself and witnesses, and the agreement of sale dated 18.06.2012 was proved - The courts below concurrently held that the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his part - Held that the finding of fact based on evidence cannot be interfered with in second appeal (Paras 1-10). B) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Section 100 - Second Appeal - Interference with concurrent findings - The High Court cannot re-appreciate evidence unless the findings are perverse or based on no evidence - The appellant failed to show any substantial question of law - Held that the second appeal is liable to be dismissed (Paras 1-10).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the concurrent findings of the courts below granting specific performance of the agreement of sale are perverse or suffer from any error of law warranting interference under Section 100 of CPC?
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the second appeal, confirming the judgment and decree of the courts below directing the appellant/defendant to execute the sale deed in respect of the suit schedule property upon receiving the balance amount of Rs.90,000/- from the respondents/plaintiffs.
Law Points
- Specific performance
- Readiness and willingness
- Concurrent findings
- Section 100 CPC
- Interference limited to substantial question of law
