Case Note & Summary
The case involves two second appeals arising from a common judgment of the appellate court in a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell land. The original plaintiffs (respondents in the appeals) sought specific performance of an agreement dated 09.06.1997 for the sale of land Survey No.46 admeasuring 3 Hectare 26R. The defendants (appellants) were the owners of the land. The plaintiffs alleged that they paid earnest money of Rs.50,000 and total consideration of Rs.2,75,000, and possession was delivered to them. The defendants failed to execute the sale deed despite repeated requests. The trial court decreed the suit for specific performance, and the first appellate court confirmed the decree. The defendants filed second appeals under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The High Court framed substantial questions of law regarding the validity of the agreement, payment of consideration, delivery of possession, readiness and willingness of the plaintiffs, and limitation. The court examined the evidence, including the testimony of the scribe and witnesses, and found that the concurrent findings of fact were based on proper appreciation of evidence and were not perverse. The court held that no substantial question of law arose and dismissed both appeals, confirming the decree for specific performance.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Second Appeal - Substantial Question of Law - Section 100 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - The High Court in second appeal cannot interfere with concurrent findings of fact unless they are perverse or based on no evidence. The court held that the findings of the trial court and first appellate court regarding execution of agreement, payment of earnest money, delivery of possession, and readiness and willingness were based on proper appreciation of evidence and did not give rise to any substantial question of law. (Paras 1-20) B) Specific Performance - Agreement to Sell - Readiness and Willingness - Sections 16(c) and 20 Specific Relief Act, 1963 - The plaintiffs must prove continuous readiness and willingness to perform their part of the contract. The court held that the plaintiffs had paid substantial consideration and were always ready to perform, and the defendants failed to execute the sale deed despite repeated requests. (Paras 10-15) C) Limitation - Suit for Specific Performance - Article 54 Limitation Act, 1963 - The period of limitation for specific performance 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 court held that the suit was filed within limitation as the defendants refused to perform in 2001 and the suit was filed in 2002. (Paras 16-18)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the courts below regarding execution of agreement to sell, payment of consideration, delivery of possession, and readiness and willingness of the plaintiffs give rise to any substantial question of law under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
Final Decision
Both second appeals are dismissed. The concurrent findings of fact recorded by the courts below are confirmed. The decree for specific performance is upheld. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Specific performance
- Agreement to sell
- Earnest money
- Possession
- Concurrent findings of fact
- Substantial question of law
- Section 100 CPC
- Limitation
- Readiness and willingness
