Case Note & Summary
The dispute pertains to an agreement to sell agricultural land bearing Survey No.33, admeasuring 3H 23R, situated at village Udapur, Taluka Ner, District Yavatmal. The appellant/plaintiff, Purushottam Devidas Bhoyar, entered into an agreement to sell dated 7.4.1991 with the respondent No.1/defendant, Sau. Sheelabai W/o Kishor Shrungare, and her deceased husband, for the southern portion of the land admeasuring 1H 21R for a total consideration of Rs.15,000/-. The plaintiff paid earnest money of Rs.9,000/- and the balance of Rs.6,000/- was payable on 18.1.1992, the date fixed for execution of the registered sale deed. The plaintiff filed Regular Civil Suit No.57 of 1993 seeking specific performance of the agreement. The trial court (Civil Judge, Sr.Dn., Ner) decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff on 30.6.1995. The defendant appealed, and the First Appellate Court (District Judge, Yavatmal) in Regular Civil Appeal No.112 of 1995 modified the decree on 4.9.1999, refusing specific performance and granting only refund of earnest money with interest. The plaintiff filed a second appeal, which was admitted on 23.2.2004 on the substantial question of law whether the First Appellate Court was wrong in setting aside the trial court's findings on readiness and willingness when the plaintiff had specifically pleaded and was ready and willing to perform his part. The High Court held that the First Appellate Court erred in reversing the trial court's decree. The plaintiff had specifically pleaded readiness and willingness in the plaint and had proved the same by evidence, including his presence at the Sub-Registrar's office on the stipulated date. The appellate court's finding that the plaintiff was not ready and willing was perverse and based on misreading of evidence. The High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the First Appellate Court's judgment, and restored the trial court's decree for specific performance of the agreement to sell.
Headnote
A) Specific Relief Act - Specific Performance - Readiness and Willingness - Section 16(c) Specific Relief Act, 1963 - The First Appellate Court erred in reversing the trial court's decree for specific performance of an agreement to sell agricultural land, as the plaintiff had specifically pleaded and proved his readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract, including payment of balance consideration. The appellate court's finding that the plaintiff was not ready and willing was perverse and based on misreading of evidence. (Paras 3-5) B) Civil Procedure - Second Appeal - Substantial Question of Law - Section 100 CPC - The High Court, in second appeal, can interfere with findings of fact if they are perverse or based on no evidence. Here, the First Appellate Court's reversal of the trial court's decree was against the weight of evidence and thus a substantial question of law arose. (Para 3)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the First Appellate Court was wrong in setting aside the findings of the trial Court on the readiness and willingness of the appellant/plaintiff when there was specific pleading in the plaint and the appellant was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the second appeal, set aside the judgment and order of the First Appellate Court dated 4.9.1999, and restored the decree for specific performance passed by the trial court on 30.6.1995.
Law Points
- Specific performance
- Readiness and willingness
- Section 16(c) Specific Relief Act
- 1963
- Agreement to sell
- Earnest money
- First appellate court's reversal
- Substantial question of law
