Case Note & Summary
The respondent-plaintiff Shankar Sonaji Shingne filed a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell 18 acres of agricultural land owned by the appellant-defendant Chintaman Sitaram Bajad. The agreement was executed on 15.6.1977, with an earnest money receipt for Rs.15,000 out of total consideration of Rs.21,600. The balance was to be paid within three years, and the sale deed was to be executed within that period. The plaintiff alleged that despite his readiness and willingness, the defendant avoided accepting the balance and executing the sale deed. The trial court decreed the suit on 16.2.1985, and the first appellate court confirmed the decree on 14.8.1989. The defendant appealed in second appeal. The High Court held that the concurrent findings of fact regarding the plaintiff's readiness and willingness were based on evidence and not perverse. The plaintiff had deposited the balance consideration in court and issued a notice to the defendant. The court dismissed the appeal, confirming the decree for specific performance.
Headnote
A) Specific Relief Act, 1963 - Section 16(c) - Readiness and Willingness - The plaintiff must prove continuous readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract from the date of agreement till the decree. The court held that the plaintiff had proved his readiness and willingness by depositing the balance consideration in court and issuing notice to the defendant. (Paras 3-5) B) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Section 100 - Second Appeal - Interference with concurrent findings of fact - The High Court in second appeal cannot interfere with concurrent findings of fact unless they are perverse or based on no evidence. The court found no perversity in the findings of the lower courts. (Para 6) C) Contract Act, 1872 - Section 55 - Time not of essence - In agreements for sale of immovable property, time is not ordinarily of the essence unless expressly agreed. The court noted that the agreement allowed three years for completion, indicating time was not of essence. (Para 4)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court in second appeal should interfere with concurrent findings of fact regarding readiness and willingness of the plaintiff to perform the contract for specific performance.
Final Decision
Appeal dismissed. Judgment and decree of the lower courts confirmed. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Specific performance of contract
- Readiness and willingness
- Concurrent findings of fact
- Interference in second appeal
- Section 16(c) Specific Relief Act
- 1963
