Case Note & Summary
The case arises from a suit for specific performance of a sale agreement dated May 26, 2006, whereby the plaintiff (first respondent) agreed to purchase a property from the first defendant (appellant) for Rs.4,75,000, paying Rs.75,000 as advance. The agreement stipulated that the sale deed would be executed on or before August 25, 2006. The plaintiff claimed he was always ready and willing to perform his part, but the first defendant, in collusion with his sister (second defendant), evaded performance. The first defendant sent a legal notice on July 20, 2006, along with a demand draft for Rs.85,500 (advance plus damages), alleging that the matter was settled and the plaintiff agreed to rescind. The plaintiff denied any settlement and filed the suit. The first defendant admitted the agreement but contended that the plaintiff, a government servant, failed to obtain permission to purchase the property, and that the plaintiff insisted on immediate possession which was not possible due to the second defendant's occupation. The first defendant claimed the contract was rescinded by mutual consent. The trial court decreed the suit for specific performance, finding that the plaintiff proved readiness and willingness, and that the defendant failed to prove rescission. The first appellate court confirmed the decree. In the second appeal, the appellant argued that the plaintiff did not prove readiness and willingness, and that the courts below erred in granting specific performance. The High Court held that the concurrent findings of fact on readiness and willingness were based on evidence and not perverse. The plaintiff had obtained permission from his department to purchase the property, and the defendant's allegation of rescission was not proved. The court found no substantial question of law and dismissed the second appeal, confirming the decree for specific performance.
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. In this case, the plaintiff, a government servant, obtained permission to purchase the property and was ready with balance consideration. The defendant failed to prove that the plaintiff was not ready. Held that the concurrent findings of fact on readiness and willingness are binding in second appeal (Paras 10-15). 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's challenge to the plaintiff's readiness and willingness was a question of fact, not a substantial question of law. Held that no substantial question of law arises (Paras 16-20).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the courts below erred in granting specific performance despite the plaintiff's alleged failure to prove readiness and willingness, and whether the second appeal raises any substantial question of law.
Final Decision
The Second Appeal is dismissed, confirming the Judgment and Decree of the First Appellate Court. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
Law Points
- Specific performance
- readiness and willingness
- concurrent findings
- substantial question of law
- Section 16(c) Specific Relief Act
- 1963
- Section 100 CPC
