Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, original defendants, challenged the concurrent decrees for specific performance of an agreement to sell dated 15.06.1981. The plaintiffs (respondents) agreed to purchase a property for Rs. 1,10,000 and paid an earnest amount of Rs. 10,000. The defendants failed to execute the sale deed despite repeated requests. The trial court decreed the suit, which was confirmed by the appellate court. The High Court, in writ jurisdiction, found no perversity or error of law in the concurrent findings. The court held that the plaintiffs had proved readiness and willingness, the suit was within limitation, and the application for additional evidence was rightly rejected. The writ petition was dismissed with costs.
Headnote
A) Specific Relief Act, 1963 - Section 16(c) - Readiness and Willingness - The plaintiff must prove continuous readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract from the date of agreement till the decree. The court upheld concurrent findings that the plaintiff had sufficient funds and was ready and willing to perform. (Paras 10-12)
B) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Order 41 Rule 27 - Additional Evidence - The appellate court may allow additional evidence only if the conditions under Rule 27 are satisfied. The petitioners' application for additional evidence was rightly rejected as the documents were not relevant and could have been produced earlier. (Paras 13-14)
C) Limitation Act, 1963 - Article 54 - Suit for Specific Performance - Limitation period is three years from the date fixed for performance or, if no date is fixed, when the plaintiff has notice that performance is refused. The suit was filed within limitation as the agreement did not fix a specific date and the plaintiff filed suit after refusal. (Para 15)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the petitioners (original defendants) have made out any ground to interfere with the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the courts below decreeing specific performance of the agreement to sell.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition with costs, upholding the concurrent findings of the courts below decreeing specific performance of the agreement to sell.
Law Points
- Specific performance
- readiness and willingness
- concurrent findings
- limitation
- Section 16(c) Specific Relief Act
- 1963
- Order 41 Rule 27 CPC
- additional evidence
Case Details
2015 LawText (BOM) (12) 16
Writ Petition No.2615 of 1993
Mr S.V. Dixit for petitioners, Mr A.S. Bajaj for respondents 1 to 6
Chindhu Sakharam Palve (since deceased by heirs) and others
Satish Soma Bhole and others
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution challenging concurrent decrees for specific performance of an agreement to sell.
Remedy Sought
Petitioners sought to quash and set aside the judgment and decree passed by the trial court and confirmed by the appellate court, decreeing specific performance of the agreement to sell.
Filing Reason
The petitioners (original defendants) failed to execute the sale deed despite receiving earnest money, leading the plaintiffs to file a suit for specific performance.
Previous Decisions
The trial court decreed the suit for specific performance. The appellate court confirmed the decree. The petitioners then filed the present writ petition.
Issues
Whether the plaintiffs proved readiness and willingness to perform the contract as required under Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963?
Whether the suit was barred by limitation?
Whether the appellate court erred in rejecting the application for additional evidence under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC?
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioners argued that the plaintiffs were not ready and willing to perform the contract and that the suit was barred by limitation.
Petitioners also contended that the appellate court should have allowed additional evidence to show that the plaintiffs had no funds.
Respondents argued that they had sufficient funds and were always ready and willing to perform, and that the suit was within limitation.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that concurrent findings of fact regarding readiness and willingness cannot be interfered with in writ jurisdiction unless perverse. The plaintiffs had proved their readiness and willingness by depositing the balance consideration and showing financial capacity. The suit was within limitation as the agreement did not fix a specific date for performance. The application for additional evidence was rightly rejected as the documents were not relevant and could have been produced earlier.
Judgment Excerpts
The plaintiffs have proved that they were ready and willing to perform their part of the contract.
The suit is within limitation as the agreement did not fix a specific date for performance.
The application for additional evidence was rightly rejected.
Procedural History
The plaintiffs filed a suit for specific performance in the trial court, which was decreed. The defendants appealed, and the appellate court confirmed the decree. The defendants then filed the present writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution.
Acts & Sections
- Specific Relief Act, 1963: Section 16(c)
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Order 41 Rule 27
- Limitation Act, 1963: Article 54
