Case Note & Summary
The present second appeal was filed by the original plaintiffs (appellants) challenging the concurrent judgment and decree passed in Special Civil Suit No.123/2003 by the 2nd Joint Civil Judge Senior Division, Ahmednagar, and confirmed in Regular Civil Appeal No. 123/2015 by the District Judge-2, Ahmednagar. The suit was for specific performance of an agreement to sell dated 01.08.2002 in respect of a property. The trial court dismissed the suit holding that the plaintiffs failed to prove readiness and willingness to perform their part of the contract. The first appellate court affirmed the dismissal. In the second appeal, the appellants contended that the courts below erred in appreciating the evidence and that the findings were perverse. The High Court, after hearing the parties, observed that the concurrent findings of fact were based on proper appreciation of evidence and did not suffer from any perversity. The court reiterated that the scope of interference under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is limited to substantial questions of law. Since no substantial question of law arose, the appeal was dismissed. The court also disposed of the pending civil application.
Headnote
A) Specific Relief Act, 1963 - Section 16(c) - Readiness and Willingness - The plaintiffs sought specific performance of an agreement to sell immovable property. The trial court and first appellate court concurrently held that the plaintiffs failed to prove their readiness and willingness to perform the contract. The High Court, in second appeal, declined to interfere as the findings were based on appreciation of evidence and did not give rise to any substantial question of law. (Paras 1-10) B) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Section 100 - Second Appeal - The scope of second appeal is limited to substantial questions of law. The High Court held that concurrent findings of fact, unless perverse or based on no evidence, cannot be re-appreciated in a second appeal. The appeal was dismissed as no substantial question of law arose. (Paras 1-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the concurrent findings of fact by the courts below regarding the failure of the plaintiffs to prove readiness and willingness to perform their part of the contract warrant interference in a second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
Final Decision
The second appeal is dismissed. The concurrent judgment and decree of the courts below are confirmed. Pending civil application also disposed of.
Law Points
- Specific performance
- Readiness and willingness
- Concurrent findings of fact
- Section 16(c) Specific Relief Act
- 1963
- Second appeal limited to substantial question of law
