Case Note & Summary
The case involves a second appeal filed by the legal heirs of the original defendant against a decree for specific performance of an agreement to sell dated 14th October 1982. The plaintiff, M/s Patvekar Hotels Private Limited, sought specific performance of an agreement whereby the defendant agreed to sell a flat. The trial court decreed specific performance, which was upheld by the first appellate court. The appellants challenged the concurrent findings, primarily arguing that the plaintiff was not ready and willing to perform the contract. The High Court examined the evidence, including the agreement and possessory receipts, and found that the plaintiff had paid the consideration and was always ready to perform. The court noted that the defendant had failed to execute the sale deed despite receiving the full consideration. The court held that no substantial question of law arose, as the findings were based on evidence and not perverse. The second appeal was dismissed, and the decree for specific performance was confirmed.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Second Appeal - Substantial Question of Law - Section 100 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - The court held that the second appeal does not involve any substantial question of law as the findings of fact by both lower courts were concurrent and based on evidence. The court refused to interfere with the concurrent findings. (Paras 1-10)
B) Specific Relief - Specific Performance - Readiness and Willingness - Section 16(c) Specific Relief Act, 1963 - The court upheld the concurrent findings that the plaintiff had proved readiness and willingness to perform the contract, as evidenced by the agreement to sell and possessory receipts. The defendant's failure to execute the sale deed despite receipt of consideration was a breach. (Paras 2-9)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the second appeal under Section 100 of CPC raises any substantial question of law, particularly regarding the plaintiff's readiness and willingness to perform the contract.
Final Decision
Second appeal dismissed; decree for specific performance upheld
Law Points
- Specific performance
- readiness and willingness
- concurrent findings
- substantial question of law
- Section 16(c) Specific Relief Act
- 1963
- Section 100 CPC
Case Details
2016 LawText (BOM) (02) 36
Second Appeal No.636 of 2014 with Civil Application No.1511 of 2014
Mr.A.Y. Sakhare, Senior Counsel with Mr.Pankaj Sawant, Senior Counsel i/b Ms.Nikita Trivedi for the Appellants; Mr.Prashant Karande for the Respondent
Legal heirs of Krishnarao Hampanna Lokray (original defendant)
M/s Patvekar Hotels Private Limited
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Second appeal against decree for specific performance of agreement to sell
Remedy Sought
Appellants sought to set aside the decree for specific performance and dismissal of the suit
Filing Reason
Appellants challenged the concurrent findings of the trial court and first appellate court decreeing specific performance
Previous Decisions
Trial court decreed specific performance; first appellate court dismissed appeal and upheld decree
Issues
Whether the second appeal involves any substantial question of law under Section 100 CPC
Whether the plaintiff proved readiness and willingness to perform the contract
Submissions/Arguments
Appellants argued that the plaintiff was not ready and willing to perform the contract
Respondent argued that the findings of fact were concurrent and based on evidence, and no substantial question of law arose
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that concurrent findings of fact on readiness and willingness cannot be interfered with in a second appeal unless perverse or based on no evidence. The plaintiff had proved readiness and willingness through the agreement and possessory receipts.
Judgment Excerpts
By this second appeal filed under section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the appellants have impugned the order and judgment dated 14th March, 2014 delivered by the learned District Judge-16, Pune dismissing Civil Appeal No.970 of 2012 filed by the appellants herein and upholding the order and judgment delivered by the learned trial Judge passing a decree for specific performance in favour of the respondent.
Procedural History
Original suit for specific performance decreed by trial court; first appeal dismissed by District Judge; second appeal filed in High Court under Section 100 CPC.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Section 100
- Specific Relief Act, 1963: Section 16(c)
