Case Note & Summary
The plaintiff-respondent filed a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell dated 28.05.2012, whereby the defendants-appellants agreed to sell suit schedule property for Rs.2,89,000/- and received earnest money of Rs.2,00,000/-. The plaintiff claimed he was always ready and willing to pay the balance and get the sale deed executed. The defendants denied the agreement and contended that the plaintiff was a professional money lender and they had only borrowed Rs.2,00,000/-. The Trial Court decreed the suit, and the First Appellate Court confirmed the decree. The defendants filed a second appeal under Section 100 CPC. The High Court heard the appeal and reserved judgment. The court examined the concurrent findings and noted that the plaintiff had deposited the balance sale consideration and proved his readiness and willingness. The court found no perversity or substantial question of law and dismissed the appeal.
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 below found that the plaintiff had deposited the balance sale consideration and was ready to perform. Held that the concurrent findings on readiness and willingness are not perverse and do not give rise to any substantial question of law. (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 appellant failed to show any perversity or substantial question of law. Held that the second appeal is dismissed. (Paras 1-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the concurrent findings of the courts below granting specific performance of the agreement to sell are perverse or suffer from any substantial question of law under Section 100 CPC.
Final Decision
The second appeal is dismissed. The concurrent findings of the Trial Court and First Appellate Court granting specific performance are upheld.
Law Points
- Specific performance
- Readiness and willingness
- Section 16(c) Specific Relief Act
- 1963
- Concurrent findings of fact
- Substantial question of law
- Section 100 CPC
Case Details
2024 LawText (KAR) (06) 14
Sri C.P.Dhananjaya for appellants, Sri S.R.Ravi Prakash for respondent
H.M.Mahadevappa and H.M.Siddalingamurthy
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Civil suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell immovable property.
Remedy Sought
Plaintiff sought decree for specific performance directing defendants to execute sale deed after receiving balance consideration.
Filing Reason
Defendants failed to execute sale deed despite receiving earnest money and plaintiff's readiness to pay balance.
Previous Decisions
Trial Court decreed suit on 24.3.2015 in O.S.No.381/2013; First Appellate Court dismissed appeal and modified decree on 16.10.2017 in R.A.No.44/2015.
Issues
Whether the plaintiff proved his readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract?
Whether the concurrent findings of the courts below are perverse or suffer from any substantial question of law?
Submissions/Arguments
Appellants argued that the plaintiff was a professional money lender and the transaction was a loan, not a sale agreement.
Respondent argued that he was always ready and willing to perform and had deposited balance consideration.
Ratio Decidendi
The plaintiff proved continuous readiness and willingness to perform the contract by depositing the balance sale consideration. The concurrent findings of fact are not perverse and do not give rise to any substantial question of law under Section 100 CPC.
Judgment Excerpts
Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and also the learned counsel for the respondents.
The parties are referred to as per their original rankings before the Trial Court, in order to avoid confusion and for the convenience of the Court.
The factual matrix of case of the plaintiff before the Trial Court that defendant entered into agreement dated 28.05.2012 with the plaintiff to sell the suit schedule property for a sale consideration of Rs.2,89,000/- and paid earnest money of Rs.2,00,000/- and balance amount payable at the time of registering the document.
Procedural History
Plaintiff filed O.S.No.381/2013 for specific performance. Trial Court decreed suit on 24.3.2015. Defendants appealed in R.A.No.44/2015, which was dismissed on 16.10.2017. Defendants then filed second appeal R.S.A.No.139/2018 under Section 100 CPC, which was heard and reserved on 21.06.2024 and judgment pronounced on 28.06.2024.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC): 100
- Specific Relief Act, 1963: 16(c)
