Case Note & Summary
The case involves three second appeals arising from a suit for specific performance and permanent injunction filed by Mohammed Sajjad Sait (plaintiff) against P. Venkatachalam and others (defendants). The plaintiff claimed that the defendants agreed to sell suit property and executed an agreement of sale. The trial court decreed the suit, and the first appellate court partly allowed the appeal, modifying the decree. The defendants filed RSA No.808/2023, and the plaintiff filed RSA Nos.1358/2023 and 1372/2023. The High Court, after hearing the parties, found that the courts below had concurrently held that the plaintiff proved his case. The High Court noted that the findings were based on evidence and not perverse. It held that no substantial question of law arose in any of the appeals. Consequently, all three second appeals were dismissed, confirming the decree for specific performance and permanent injunction.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Second Appeal - Section 100 CPC - Substantial Question of Law - The High Court dismissed the second appeals as no substantial question of law arose. The trial court and first appellate court had concurrently found that the plaintiff was entitled to specific performance and permanent injunction based on evidence. The High Court held that concurrent findings of fact cannot be interfered with in a second appeal unless perverse or based on no evidence. (Paras 1-10) B) Specific Performance - Readiness and Willingness - Section 16(c) Specific Relief Act, 1963 - The courts below found that the plaintiff had proved readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract. The High Court upheld this finding as it was based on appreciation of evidence. (Paras 5-8) C) Limitation - Suit for Specific Performance - Article 54 Limitation Act, 1963 - The suit was held to be within limitation as the date fixed for performance was not specified and the suit was filed within three years from the date of notice. (Paras 6-7)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the second appeals raise any substantial question of law warranting interference under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, given the concurrent findings of fact by the courts below.
Final Decision
All three second appeals are dismissed. The judgment and decree of the first appellate court are confirmed.
Law Points
- Second appeal under Section 100 CPC
- concurrent findings of fact
- substantial question of law
- specific performance
- permanent injunction
- limitation
- readiness and willingness
