Case Note & Summary
The present Regular Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) was filed by the defendants (appellants) against the judgment and decree dated 13.12.2019 passed by the I Additional District Judge, Kolar, in RA No.141/2015, which dismissed the appeal and confirmed the judgment and decree dated 30.09.2015 passed by the II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Kolar (Itinerating at Mulbagal), in O.S.No.248/2012. The suit was filed by the plaintiff/respondent for specific performance of an agreement to sell dated 09.01.2012 executed by the original defendant No.1 (since deceased) in respect of suit properties. The trial court decreed the suit, directing the defendant to execute the sale deed after receiving the balance sale consideration. The first appellate court dismissed the appeal and also rejected an application (IA No.VI) filed under Order 1 Rule 10(2) read with Section 151 CPC seeking impleadment of legal representatives of the deceased defendant. The High Court heard the appeal and considered the grounds raised. The Court noted that the appeal was filed against concurrent findings of fact. The appellants contended that the suit was barred by limitation, that the plaintiff was not ready and willing to perform his part, and that the agreement was not proved. However, the High Court found that the trial court and first appellate court had properly appreciated the evidence, including the agreement, notice, and deposit of balance consideration. The Court held that no substantial question of law arose for consideration under Section 100 CPC. The application for impleadment was rightly rejected as it was filed belatedly and would change the nature of the suit. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the judgment and decree of the courts below were confirmed.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Regular Second Appeal - Section 100 CPC - Substantial Question of Law - The High Court declined to interfere with concurrent findings of fact regarding execution of agreement to sell, readiness and willingness of plaintiff, and limitation, as no substantial question of law arose. Held that the findings of fact recorded by both courts below were based on proper appreciation of evidence and did not call for interference (Paras 2-5). B) Specific Performance - Agreement to Sell - Readiness and Willingness - Sections 16(c) and 20 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 - The plaintiff proved readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract by depositing the balance sale consideration and issuing notice. Held that the concurrent findings on this issue were justified (Paras 2-5). C) Limitation - Suit for Specific Performance - Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963 - The suit was filed within three years from the date fixed for performance (30.06.2012) as per the agreement. Held that the suit was not barred by limitation (Paras 2-5). D) Civil Procedure - Impleading Application - Order 1 Rule 10 CPC - The application filed by the appellants (defendants) to implead legal representatives was rejected by the first appellate court as it was filed belatedly and would change the nature of the suit. Held that the rejection was proper and did not warrant interference (Paras 2-5).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the judgment and decree for specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 09.01.2012 passed by the trial court and confirmed by the first appellate court suffers from any substantial question of law warranting interference under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the Regular Second Appeal, confirming the judgment and decree of the trial court and the first appellate court. The suit for specific performance was decreed, and the application for impleadment was rejected.
Law Points
- Specific performance
- Section 100 CPC
- concurrent findings of fact
- readiness and willingness
- limitation
- Order 1 Rule 10 CPC
