Case Note & Summary
This second appeal arises from a suit for specific performance of an oral agreement to sell agricultural land. The plaintiff (now represented by legal heirs) alleged that defendant no.1 orally agreed to sell the suit property for Rs. 6,000 and received an advance of Rs. 2,000. The plaintiff claimed readiness and willingness to pay the balance and sought execution of a sale deed. The defendants denied the oral agreement and contended that a written document dated 31.12.1973 was the only agreement, which did not refer to any earlier oral agreement. The Trial Court decreed the suit, directing specific performance. The First Appellate Court confirmed the decree. In second appeal, the defendants raised substantial questions of law regarding the validity of decreeing a suit based on an oral agreement when a written document existed. The High Court held that the written document was a separate transaction and did not supersede the oral agreement. The court found that the plaintiff had proved readiness and willingness by depositing the balance amount. The concurrent findings of fact were not perverse. The appeal was dismissed, and the decree for specific performance was upheld.
Headnote
A) Specific Relief Act - Specific Performance of Oral Agreement - Section 16(c) - Readiness and Willingness - The plaintiff must plead and prove continuous readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract. The court held that the plaintiff had sufficiently pleaded and proved readiness and willingness by depositing the balance consideration and offering to pay. (Paras 10-15)
B) Evidence Act - Oral Agreement - Admissibility - Section 91 - Exclusion of Oral Evidence by Documentary Evidence - The court held that Section 91 of the Evidence Act does not bar proof of an oral agreement when the written document is not intended to be the sole repository of the contract. The written document dated 31.12.1973 was a separate transaction and did not supersede the earlier oral agreement. (Paras 16-20)
C) Civil Procedure Code - Second Appeal - Substantial Question of Law - Section 100 - The court held that concurrent findings of fact based on appreciation of evidence cannot be interfered with in second appeal unless perverse or based on no evidence. The findings of the courts below were not perverse. (Paras 21-25)
Issue of Consideration
Whether both courts were justified in decreeing the suit filed on the basis of an oral agreement when there was a written document dated 31.12.1973 between the plaintiff and defendant no.1 that did not refer to the earlier alleged oral agreement.
Final Decision
The second appeal is dismissed. The concurrent judgments and decrees for specific performance are upheld.
Law Points
- Specific performance of oral agreement
- Section 16(c) Specific Relief Act 1963
- readiness and willingness
- burden of proof
- concurrent findings of fact
- substantial question of law
Case Details
2025 LawText (BOM) (11) 145
Second Appeal No. 344 of 1992
Mr. S.M. Gorwadkar, Senior Advocate a/w. Mr. Sujay H. Gangal a/w. Mr. Swaraj M. Savant for Appellants; Ms. Rukmini Khairnar i/b. Mr. Pramod Joshi for Respondents
Fakira Rambhau Shewale Since deceased through his legal heirs and others
Vasant Narayan Rane Since deceased through his legal heirs and others
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Second appeal against concurrent decrees for specific performance of an oral agreement to sell agricultural land.
Remedy Sought
Appellants (defendants) sought to set aside the decrees for specific performance and dismissal of the suit.
Filing Reason
Appellants challenged the concurrent judgments and decrees passed for specific performance of the agreement to sell the suit property.
Previous Decisions
Trial Court decreed the suit directing specific performance; First Appellate Court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the decree.
Issues
Whether both courts were justified in decreeing the suit filed on the basis of an oral agreement when there was a written document dated 31.12.1973 between the plaintiff and defendant no.1 that did not refer to the earlier alleged oral agreement.
Submissions/Arguments
Appellants argued that the suit was based on an oral agreement, but there was a written document dated 31.12.1973 which did not refer to any earlier oral agreement, and thus the oral agreement was not proved.
Respondents argued that the written document was a separate transaction and did not supersede the oral agreement, and that the plaintiff had proved readiness and willingness.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that the written document dated 31.12.1973 was a separate transaction and did not supersede the earlier oral agreement. The plaintiff had proved readiness and willingness by depositing the balance consideration. The concurrent findings of fact were not perverse and could not be interfered with in second appeal under Section 100 CPC.
Judgment Excerpts
This second appeal is preferred by the defendants to challenge the concurrent judgments and decrees passed for specific performance of the agreement to sell the suit property.
Whether both the Courts were justified in decreeing the suit filed on the basis of oral agreement, when admittedly there was a written document about the suit property, dated 31.12.1973, between the Plaintiff and the Defendant No.1, and the said Written document do not refer to earlier alleged oral agreement.
Procedural History
The plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance of an oral agreement to sell land. The Trial Court decreed the suit. The defendants appealed to the District Court, which dismissed the appeal. The defendants then filed a second appeal in the High Court, which was admitted on questions of law. The High Court dismissed the second appeal.
Acts & Sections
- Specific Relief Act, 1963: Section 16(c)
- Indian Evidence Act, 1872: Section 91
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Section 100
