Case Note & Summary
The appellant (original plaintiff) filed a suit for specific performance of an agreement for sale of an open space with superstructure admeasuring 213.75 square feet out of Plot No. 179, Nazul Sheet No. 92/1 situated at Takarkheda, Amravati. On 15.12.1997, token money of Rs. 501/- was paid, and on 24.12.1997, an agreement for sale was executed after payment of Rs. 4,400/-. The total consideration was fixed at Rs. 16,000/-, and the sale deed was to be executed on or before 30.6.1998. The plaintiff claimed that he had paid an additional Rs. 2,000/- from time to time. Since the defendant failed to execute the sale deed, the plaintiff issued a legal notice on 22.12.2000 calling upon the defendant to remain present at the Sub-Registrar's office on 29.12.2000. The plaintiff remained present throughout office hours, but the defendant did not turn up. The plaintiff swore an affidavit on stamp paper to substantiate his presence. The defendant filed a written statement denying the suit claim, alleging that the transaction was a handloan and that his signatures were obtained on blank stamp paper. The trial court dismissed the suit, holding that the plaintiff failed to prove readiness and willingness. The first appellate court confirmed the dismissal. The plaintiff filed a second appeal, which was admitted on the substantial question of law regarding the perversity of the findings on readiness and willingness. The High Court observed that the plaintiff had entered the witness box and deposed in support of his claim, proving the agreement (Exhibit 22), legal notice (Exhibit 24), and affidavit (Exhibit 25). The defendant did not lead any evidence to rebut the plaintiff's case. The courts below had drawn adverse inference against the plaintiff for not examining the attesting witness, but the High Court held that since the defendant did not challenge the execution of the agreement, there was no need to examine the attesting witness. The High Court found that the findings of the courts below were perverse as they were based on conjectures and not on evidence. The High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the judgments of the courts below, and decreed the suit for specific performance. The defendant was directed to execute the sale deed within two months on payment of the balance consideration of Rs. 12,000/- by the plaintiff.
Headnote
A) Specific Performance - Readiness and Willingness - Section 16(c) Specific Relief Act, 1963 - Perverse Findings - The plaintiff filed suit for specific performance of an agreement for sale of land. Both trial and first appellate courts dismissed the suit holding that plaintiff failed to prove readiness and willingness. The High Court found that the courts below ignored material evidence including the agreement (Exhibit 22), legal notice (Exhibit 24), and affidavit (Exhibit 25) showing plaintiff's presence at the Sub-Registrar's office. The findings were held perverse and unsustainable as they were based on conjectures and not on evidence. (Paras 1-8) B) Evidence - Appreciation of Evidence - Perversity - The High Court held that when a finding is based on no evidence or is contrary to the evidence on record, it is perverse. In this case, the plaintiff had deposed about his readiness and willingness, and the defendant did not lead any evidence to rebut the same. The courts below erred in drawing adverse inference against the plaintiff for not examining the attesting witness, when the defendant had not challenged the execution of the agreement. (Paras 5-8) C) Contract - Agreement for Sale - Earnest Money - The agreement for sale (Exhibit 22) clearly recited that earnest money of Rs. 4,000/- was paid and the balance consideration of Rs. 12,000/- was to be paid at the time of execution of sale deed. The plaintiff's evidence showed he was ready to pay the balance. The defendant's plea of handloan was not supported by any evidence. The High Court held that the plaintiff had proved his readiness and willingness. (Paras 2-4)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the reasons recorded by both the Courts for holding that the plaintiff was not ready and willing to perform his part of contract are perverse and unsustainable?
Final Decision
Appeal allowed. Judgments and decrees of both courts below set aside. Suit for specific performance decreed. Defendant directed to execute sale deed within two months on payment of balance consideration of Rs. 12,000/- by plaintiff. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Specific performance
- readiness and willingness
- perverse findings
- Section 16(c) Specific Relief Act
- 1963
- burden of proof
- agreement for sale
- earnest money
