Case Note & Summary
The present second appeal was filed by the original defendant, Santosh Madanlal Agrawal, challenging the concurrent judgment and decree passed by the trial court and the first appellate court in a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell agricultural land. The respondents/original plaintiffs, Bhagwat Ragho Karad, Sudhir Bhagwat Karad, and Dhanraj Sitaram Karche, had filed Special Civil Suit No. 36 of 2008 before the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Raver, seeking specific performance of an agreement dated 15th June 2006, whereby the defendant agreed to sell agricultural land bearing Gat No. 44, admeasuring 1 Hectare 20 R, situated at village Savkheda (Bk.), Taluka Raver, District Jalgaon, for a total consideration of Rs. 3,00,000. The plaintiffs claimed that they paid an earnest amount of Rs. 1,00,000 and were ready and willing to pay the balance amount, but the defendant failed to execute the sale deed. The defendant contested the suit, denying the agreement and alleging that the plaintiffs were not ready and willing to perform their part. The trial court decreed the suit, directing the defendant to execute the sale deed upon receipt of the balance consideration. The defendant's appeal before the District Judge, Jalgaon, was dismissed. In the second appeal, the appellant argued that the courts below erred in holding that the plaintiffs were ready and willing, and that the agreement was not proved. The High Court, after hearing counsel, found that the concurrent findings of fact were based on evidence and did not suffer from any perversity. The court noted that the plaintiffs had examined witnesses and produced documents to show their financial capacity and readiness. The defendant failed to raise any substantial question of law. Consequently, the second appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Specific Relief Act, 1963 - Section 16(c) - Readiness and Willingness - Concurrent findings of fact - Second Appeal - The plaintiffs filed a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell agricultural land. The trial court and first appellate court concurrently held that the plaintiffs were ready and willing to perform their part of the contract. The defendant challenged these findings in second appeal. The High Court held that the findings of fact recorded by the courts below were based on proper appreciation of evidence and did not give rise to any substantial question of law. The second appeal was dismissed. (Paras 1-10) B) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Section 100 - Substantial question of law - Interference with concurrent findings - The High Court reiterated that in a second appeal, the court cannot interfere with concurrent findings of fact unless they are perverse or based on no evidence. The appellant failed to show any perversity or error of law in the impugned judgments. (Paras 8-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the concurrent findings of fact regarding readiness and willingness of the plaintiffs to perform their part of the contract can be interfered with in second appeal under Section 100 CPC?
Final Decision
The second appeal is dismissed. The concurrent judgment and decree passed by the trial court and first appellate court are confirmed. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Specific performance
- Readiness and willingness
- Concurrent findings
- Substantial question of law
- Section 16(c) Specific Relief Act
- 1963
