Case Note & Summary
The appellant/plaintiff Palanivel filed a suit for specific performance of an agreement of sale dated February 22, 2008, whereby the first defendant Balasubramanian agreed to sell certain agricultural properties for Rs.5,00,000. The plaintiff paid an advance of Rs.10,000 and agreed to pay the balance of Rs.4,90,000 within 69 days. The plaintiff alleged that the first defendant, in collusion with the second defendant (plaintiff's brother's wife), executed a sale deed in favor of the second defendant, thereby breaching the agreement. The trial court dismissed the suit, holding that the plaintiff failed to prove readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract. The first appellate court confirmed the dismissal. In the second appeal under Section 100 CPC, the High Court framed a substantial question of law regarding the correctness of the concurrent findings. The court noted that the plaintiff did not produce any evidence to show that he had the financial capacity to pay the balance amount within the stipulated time or that he made any demand or tender. The courts below had concurrently found that the plaintiff was not ready and willing. The High Court held that these findings were based on proper appreciation of evidence and were not perverse. Consequently, the second appeal was dismissed, confirming the judgments of the courts below.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Second Appeal - Section 100 CPC - Interference with concurrent findings - The High Court in a second appeal cannot interfere with concurrent findings of fact unless they are perverse or based on no evidence - The plaintiff's failure to prove readiness and willingness to pay the balance sale price within the stipulated time was a finding of fact not open to challenge (Paras 10-15). B) Specific Relief Act, 1963 - Section 16(c) - Readiness and willingness - The plaintiff must plead and prove continuous readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract from the date of agreement till the decree - Mere payment of advance and filing of suit is insufficient - The plaintiff's failure to deposit the balance amount or show financial capacity negates the claim (Paras 12-14).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the concurrent findings of the courts below that the plaintiff was not ready and willing to perform his part of the contract and that the suit for specific performance was rightly dismissed, suffer from any perversity or error of law warranting interference under Section 100 CPC.
Final Decision
Second Appeal dismissed. The judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court confirming the Trial Court's dismissal of the suit for specific performance are upheld. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Specific performance
- Readiness and willingness
- Concurrent findings of fact
- Section 100 CPC
- Interference limited to substantial question of law
