Bombay High Court Dismisses Second Appeal in Specific Performance Suit — Concurrent Findings of Readiness and Willingness Upheld. Agreement to Sell for Rs. 1,10,000 with Rs. 1,000 Earnest Money; Plaintiff Proved Continuous Readiness and Willingness to Perform.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: AURANGABAD In Favour of Prosecution
  • 133
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The case involves a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell agricultural land. The plaintiffs (respondents) entered into an agreement with the original defendant (appellant) on 15-06-1985 for sale of land for Rs. 1,10,000, receiving Rs. 1,000 as earnest money. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendant failed to execute the sale deed despite repeated requests and readiness to pay the balance. The trial court decreed the suit, and the first appeal was dismissed. In second appeal, the defendant argued that the plaintiffs failed to prove readiness and willingness. The High Court examined the evidence, including the plaintiffs' financial capacity and conduct, and held that the concurrent findings were based on proper appreciation of evidence. The court dismissed the appeal, finding no substantial question of law.

Headnote

A) Specific Relief Act - 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 from the date of agreement till the decree. The court held that the plaintiff had proved his financial capacity and readiness to pay the balance consideration, and the concurrent findings of fact cannot be disturbed in second appeal unless perverse. (Paras 1-10)

B) Civil Procedure Code - Second Appeal - Substantial Question of Law - Section 100 CPC - The High Court cannot interfere with concurrent findings of fact unless they are perverse or based on no evidence. The court found no substantial question of law involved. (Paras 1-10)

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the concurrent findings of fact regarding readiness and willingness of the plaintiff to perform his part of the contract can be interfered with in second appeal under Section 100 of CPC.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

Second Appeal dismissed. Decree for specific performance confirmed.

Law Points

  • Specific performance
  • readiness and willingness
  • concurrent findings
  • substantial question of law
  • Section 16(c) Specific Relief Act
  • 1963
  • Section 100 CPC
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2016 LawText (BOM) (08) 50

Second Appeal No. 512 of 1991

0000-00-00

T.V. Nalawade, J.

Mr. S.S. Bora for appellants; Mr. V.J. Dixit, Senior Counsel instructed by Mr. G.V. Wani for respondents

Ramchandra Gangaram Sangole (deceased through LRs) and others

Prakash Eknath Choudhari and others

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

Nature of Litigation

Civil suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell agricultural land.

Remedy Sought

Decree for specific performance directing the defendant to execute sale deed in favour of plaintiffs.

Filing Reason

Defendant failed to execute sale deed despite receipt of earnest money and plaintiffs' readiness to pay balance.

Previous Decisions

Trial court decreed the suit; first appeal dismissed by District Court.

Issues

Whether the plaintiffs proved their readiness and willingness to perform their part of the contract? Whether the concurrent findings of fact can be interfered with in second appeal under Section 100 CPC?

Submissions/Arguments

Appellants argued that plaintiffs failed to prove readiness and willingness, and that the findings are perverse. Respondents argued that they proved financial capacity and readiness, and concurrent findings cannot be disturbed.

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiff must prove continuous readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract. Concurrent findings of fact based on evidence cannot be interfered with in second appeal unless perverse.

Judgment Excerpts

The plaintiffs have proved their readiness and willingness to perform their part of the contract. No substantial question of law arises in this appeal.

Procedural History

Original suit filed in 1985; trial court decreed suit in 1988; first appeal dismissed in 1991; second appeal filed in 1991.

Acts & Sections

  • Specific Relief Act, 1963: Section 16(c)
  • Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Section 100
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Upholds Conviction for Murder and Cruelty Based on Circumstantial Evidence — Last Seen Theory and Motive Established Beyond Reasonable Doubt. The court affirmed life imprisonment under Section 302 IPC and one year rigorous impriso...
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Dismisses Second Appeal in Specific Performance Suit — Concurrent Findings of Readiness and Willingness Upheld. Agreement to Sell for Rs. 1,10,000 with Rs. 1,000 Earnest Money; Plaintiff Proved Continuous Readiness and Willingness...