Case Note & Summary
The respondent (original plaintiff) filed Special Civil Suit No.136 of 1987 for specific performance of an agreement to sell dated 19.7.1987, whereby the appellants (original defendants) agreed to sell a shop premises admeasuring 10 ft. x 17 ft. in a shopping complex for Rs.77,000/-. The plaintiff paid Rs.50,000/- as earnest money. The defendants were to execute the sale deed by 21.9.1987 but sought extension till 5.10.1987. The plaintiff alleged he was always ready and willing to perform his part, issued notices and telegrams, and even published a public notice on 4.10.1987. The defendants failed to execute the sale deed, leading to the suit. The defendants denied the agreement and claimed the plaintiff was not ready. The trial court decreed the suit for specific performance, which was confirmed by the first appellate court. In second appeal, the appellants argued that the plaintiff failed to prove readiness and willingness. The High Court held that the concurrent findings of fact were based on evidence and did not raise any substantial question of law. The appeal was dismissed, and the decree for specific performance was upheld.
Headnote
A) Specific Performance - Readiness and Willingness - Section 16(c) Specific Relief Act, 1963 - The plaintiff must prove continuous readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract. In this case, the plaintiff paid earnest money of Rs.50,000/- out of total consideration of Rs.77,000/-, issued notices and telegrams, and filed suit within the stipulated time. The courts below concurrently found that the plaintiff was ready and willing. The High Court held that no substantial question of law arises as the findings are based on appreciation of evidence. (Paras 1-6) B) Second Appeal - Substantial Question of Law - Section 100 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - The High Court's jurisdiction in second appeal is limited to substantial questions of law. Concurrent findings of fact cannot be interfered with unless perverse or based on no evidence. The appellants failed to show any perversity or error of law. (Paras 5-6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract for specific performance of an agreement to sell, and whether the second appeal raises any substantial question of law.
Final Decision
Second Appeal dismissed. Judgment and decree passed by the Principal District Judge, Amravati in Regular Civil Appeal No.312 of 2000 confirming the decree for specific performance is upheld. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Specific performance
- readiness and willingness
- concurrent findings of fact
- limitation for second appeal
- Section 16(c) Specific Relief Act
- 1963
