Supreme Court Allows Appeal in Specific Performance Case — High Court Exceeded Jurisdiction Under Section 41 of Punjab Courts Act, 1918 by Reversing Concurrent Findings of Fact on Readiness and Willingness. The court restored the decree for specific performance holding that readiness and willingness is a finding of fact and that a subsequent power of attorney can ratify prior acts.

  • 8
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The appellant, Randhir Kaur, filed a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell dated November 5, 2004, for land measuring 193 kanals 18 marlas at Rs.1,27,000 per acre. An earnest money of Rs.13,50,000 was paid to defendant Nos. 1 and 2 at the time of execution. The date for registration of the sale deed was fixed as January 30, 2005. The suit was filed on April 3, 2006. The trial court decreed the suit on April 13, 2010, and the first appellate court dismissed the appeal on August 11, 2012, affirming the decree. However, in second appeal, the High Court declined the relief of specific performance and instead granted a decree for recovery of Rs.13,50,000 with 12% interest. The High Court held that the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform the contract but that Dhanwant Singh, the plaintiff's son who acted on her behalf, was not authorized by a power of attorney at the time of the agreement. The Supreme Court examined the scope of interference in second appeal under Section 41 of the Punjab Courts Act, 1918, which is pari materia with the old Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The court noted that the first appellate court had recorded a finding that the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform her part of the contract, which is a finding of fact. The High Court could not reverse this finding unless it was contrary to law or based on a substantial error in procedure. The Supreme Court also noted that the defendants had not raised any plea in the written statement that Dhanwant Singh was not authorized. The subsequent power of attorney dated September 14, 2005, ratified all acts of Dhanwant Singh, including the purchase of property. The court held that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction by reversing the concurrent findings of fact. The appeal was allowed, the High Court's judgment was set aside, and the decree for specific performance passed by the trial court and affirmed by the first appellate court was restored.

Headnote

A) Civil Procedure - Second Appeal - Section 41 Punjab Courts Act, 1918 - Scope of Interference - The High Court in second appeal under Section 41 of the Punjab Courts Act, 1918 cannot reverse concurrent findings of fact unless the decision is contrary to law or there is a substantial error or defect in procedure. The provision is pari materia with old Section 100 CPC. The court held that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction by interfering with findings of fact on readiness and willingness and authority of the attorney. (Paras 9-12)

B) Contract Law - Specific Performance - Readiness and Willingness - Finding of Fact - The question of readiness and willingness to perform a contract is a finding of fact based on oral and documentary evidence. The first appellate court's finding that the plaintiff was ready and willing cannot be interfered with in second appeal unless perverse. (Paras 9-10)

C) Contract Law - Specific Performance - Power of Attorney - Ratification - A subsequent power of attorney can ratify prior acts of the attorney. The High Court erred in holding that Dhanwant Singh was not authorized to act on behalf of the appellant, as the defendants received the earnest money from him and the subsequent power of attorney ratified his acts. (Paras 5-6)

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the High Court in second appeal under Section 41 of the Punjab Courts Act, 1918 could reverse the concurrent findings of fact regarding the plaintiff's readiness and willingness to perform the contract and the authority of Dhanwant Singh to act on behalf of the appellant.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment of the High Court, and restored the decree for specific performance passed by the trial court and affirmed by the first appellate court.

Law Points

  • Second appeal jurisdiction under Section 41 of Punjab Courts Act
  • 1918 is pari materia with old Section 100 CPC
  • High Court cannot reverse concurrent findings of fact
  • readiness and willingness is a finding of fact
  • power of attorney ratification can cure lack of authority
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2019 LawText (SC) (7) 91

Civil Appeal No. 5822 of 2019 (Arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 32979 of 2016)

2019-07-24

Hemant Gupta, J.

Randhir Kaur

Prithvi Pal Singh & Ors.

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Civil suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell immovable property.

Remedy Sought

The appellant (plaintiff) sought specific performance of the agreement to sell dated November 5, 2004, and in the alternative, recovery of the earnest money paid.

Filing Reason

The defendants failed to execute the sale deed despite receipt of earnest money and the plaintiff's readiness and willingness to perform the contract.

Previous Decisions

The trial court decreed the suit on April 13, 2010. The first appellate court dismissed the appeal on August 11, 2012. The High Court in second appeal set aside the decree for specific performance and granted a decree for recovery of Rs.13,50,000 with 12% interest.

Issues

Whether the High Court in second appeal under Section 41 of the Punjab Courts Act, 1918 could reverse the concurrent findings of fact regarding the plaintiff's readiness and willingness to perform the contract. Whether Dhanwant Singh was authorized to act on behalf of the appellant at the time of the agreement to sell. Whether the subsequent power of attorney dated September 14, 2005 ratified the prior acts of Dhanwant Singh.

Submissions/Arguments

Appellant argued that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction under Section 41 of the Punjab Act by reversing findings of fact, and that the subsequent power of attorney ratified all acts of Dhanwant Singh. Respondents argued that the first power of attorney did not relate to the land in question and the subsequent power of attorney could not ratify an agreement already executed, and that the plaintiff failed to prove readiness and willingness.

Ratio Decidendi

In a second appeal under Section 41 of the Punjab Courts Act, 1918, the High Court cannot reverse concurrent findings of fact unless the decision is contrary to law or there is a substantial error or defect in procedure. Readiness and willingness to perform a contract is a finding of fact. A subsequent power of attorney can ratify prior acts of the attorney.

Judgment Excerpts

The first and the foremost question arises in respect of scope of interference in second appeal in Punjab and Haryana is governed by Section 41 of the Punjab Act. The effect of the Constitution Bench judgment in Pankajakshi is that in second appeal, the scope of interference within the Punjab and Haryana High Court would be the same as Code of Civil Procedure existed prior to 1976 amendment. The provisions of Section 41 of the Punjab Act and of Section 100 of the CPC are pari materia.

Procedural History

The appellant filed a suit for specific performance in the trial court, which was decreed on April 13, 2010. The first appellate court dismissed the appeal on August 11, 2012. The High Court in second appeal set aside the decree for specific performance and granted a decree for recovery of Rs.13,50,000 with 12% interest. The appellant appealed to the Supreme Court by way of SLP.

Acts & Sections

  • Punjab Courts Act, 1918: Section 41
  • Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Section 100
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Allows Appeal in Specific Performance Case — High Court Exceeded Jurisdiction Under Section 41 of Punjab Courts Act, 1918 by Reversing Concurrent Findings of Fact on Readiness and Willingness. The court restored the decree for specifi...
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Dismisses Appeals Against High Court's Alteration of Conviction from Murder to Culpable Homicide in Land Dispute Case. Prosecution's Suppression of Accused's FIR and Injury Reports Creates Reasonable Doubt.