Madras High Court Dismisses Second Appeal in Specific Performance Suit — Concurrent Findings of Fact Not Interfered With. Agreement of Sale Not Proved as Plaintiff Failed to Show Readiness and Willingness to Perform Contract Under Section 16(c) of Specific Relief Act, 1963.

High Court: Madras High Court In Favour of Accused
  • 1
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The 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 suit properties for Rs.5 lakhs. 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 colluded with the second defendant (plaintiff's brother's wife) and executed a sale deed in her favor. The trial court dismissed the suit, holding that the plaintiff failed to prove readiness and willingness to perform the contract. The first appellate court confirmed the decree. In second appeal, the High Court examined whether any substantial question of law arose. The court noted that the plaintiff did not deposit the balance amount or demonstrate financial capacity. The concurrent findings of fact were not perverse. The High Court dismissed the second appeal, holding that no interference was warranted under Section 100 CPC.

Headnote

A) Civil Procedure Code - Second Appeal - Section 100 CPC - Interference with Concurrent Findings - The High Court cannot interfere with concurrent findings of fact unless they are perverse or based on no evidence - The courts below concurrently held that the plaintiff failed to prove readiness and willingness to perform the contract - No substantial question of law arises (Paras 1-20).

B) Specific Relief Act - Specific Performance - Section 16(c) - Readiness and Willingness - Plaintiff must plead and prove continuous readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract - The plaintiff's failure to deposit balance sale consideration or show financial capacity negates his claim - Held that the courts below rightly dismissed the suit (Paras 3-20).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the High Court under Section 100 of CPC can interfere with concurrent findings of fact regarding readiness and willingness to perform the contract in a suit for specific performance.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The Second Appeal is dismissed. No costs. The judgments and decrees of the courts below are confirmed.

Law Points

  • Specific performance
  • Readiness and willingness
  • Concurrent findings of fact
  • Section 100 CPC
  • Section 16(c) Specific Relief Act
  • 1963
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2025 LawText (MAD) (01) 505

S.A.No.501 of 2018

2025-01-20

R.SAKTHIVEL

2025:MHC:154

Mr.A.Arunbabu, Mr.B.Singaravelu for Mr.P.P.Shanmuga Sundaram

Palanivel

Balasubramanian, Suguna

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Second Appeal against concurrent dismissal of suit for specific performance of agreement of sale.

Remedy Sought

Plaintiff sought specific performance of agreement dated 22.02.2008 and consequential relief.

Filing Reason

Plaintiff alleged that first defendant agreed to sell suit properties for Rs.5 lakhs, paid advance Rs.10,000, but first defendant sold property to second defendant.

Previous Decisions

Trial Court dismissed O.S.No.12 of 2009 on 17.01.2013; First Appellate Court dismissed A.S.No.65 of 2013 on 13.09.2017.

Issues

Whether the plaintiff proved readiness and willingness to perform the contract as required under Section 16(c) of Specific Relief Act, 1963? Whether the High Court can interfere with concurrent findings of fact in a second appeal under Section 100 CPC?

Submissions/Arguments

Appellant argued that the courts below erred in holding that he failed to prove readiness and willingness. Respondents supported concurrent findings and argued no substantial question of law arises.

Ratio Decidendi

In a suit for specific performance, the plaintiff must plead and prove continuous readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract. Failure to deposit balance consideration or show financial capacity negates the claim. Concurrent findings of fact based on evidence cannot be interfered with in second appeal unless perverse.

Judgment Excerpts

This Second Appeal is directed by the unsuccessful plaintiff assailing the Judgment and Decree dated September 13, 2017 passed in A.S.No.65 of 2013... The plaintiff failed to prove readiness and willingness to perform the contract.

Procedural History

Plaintiff filed O.S.No.12 of 2009 for specific performance. Trial Court dismissed suit on 17.01.2013. Plaintiff appealed in A.S.No.65 of 2013, which was dismissed on 13.09.2017. Plaintiff then filed Second Appeal No.501 of 2018, which was dismissed on 20.01.2025.

Acts & Sections

  • Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Section 100
  • Specific Relief Act, 1963: Section 16(c)
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Madras High Court Dismisses Second Appeal in Specific Performance Suit — Concurrent Findings of Fact Not Interfered With. Agreement of Sale Not Proved as Plaintiff Failed to Show Readiness and Willingness to Perform Contract Under Section 16(c) of ...
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Allows Second Appeal in Encroachment Dispute, Remands for Proper Measurement by Cadastral Surveyor. Lower Appellate Court's Remand Order Upheld as Defects in Map Preparation Required Rectification for Fair Adjudication.