Case Note & Summary
The case involves a second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, filed by original defendant No. 2, Venunath Sambha More, challenging the concurrent judgments and decrees of the trial court and the first appellate court. The suit was filed by Limbabai D/o Abaji Jamdar (since deceased, represented by legal representatives) for specific performance of a contract dated 12/08/1973 for the sale of a house bearing old number 1166, renumbered as 1318/1, admeasuring East-West, for a consideration of Rs. 500. The trial court decreed the suit, directing the legal representative of defendant No. 1 Niranjan and defendant No. 2 Venunath to jointly execute the registered sale deed in favor of the plaintiff after accepting the consideration. The first appellate court confirmed the decree. The appellant challenged these orders in the second appeal. The High Court, after hearing the counsel for the appellant and the respondent, found that no substantial question of law arose in the appeal. The court noted that the appellant had not raised any substantial question of law and that the concurrent findings of fact by the courts below were based on proper appreciation of evidence. The court held that the plaintiff had proved her readiness and willingness to perform her part of the contract, as she had deposited the balance consideration in court and consistently sought performance. The High Court dismissed the second appeal, upholding the decree for specific performance.
Headnote
A) Specific Relief Act - Specific Performance of Contract - Readiness and Willingness - Section 16(c) Specific Relief Act, 1963 - The plaintiff must prove continuous readiness and willingness to perform her part of the contract from the date of agreement till the decree. In this case, the plaintiff deposited the balance consideration in court and consistently sought performance, which was held sufficient to establish readiness and willingness. (Paras 1-3) B) Civil Procedure Code - Second Appeal - Substantial Question of Law - Section 100 CPC - The High Court cannot interfere with concurrent findings of fact unless there is a substantial question of law. The appellant failed to raise any such question, and the findings of the courts below were based on proper appreciation of evidence. (Paras 2-3)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the courts below were justified in decreeing the suit for specific performance of contract dated 12/08/1973 and whether the appellant raised any substantial question of law under Section 100 CPC.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the second appeal, upholding the judgments and decrees of the courts below decreeing the suit for specific performance of contract dated 12/08/1973.
Law Points
- Specific performance of contract
- Readiness and willingness
- Section 16(c) Specific Relief Act
- 1963
- Section 100 CPC
- Substantial question of law
