Case Note & Summary
The appellant-defendant filed a Regular Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, challenging the judgment and decree dated 28.08.2014 passed by the Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, Chinthamani, in R.A.No.44/2013, which dismissed the appeal and confirmed the judgment and decree dated 16.03.2013 passed by the Additional Civil Judge & JMFC, Chinthamani, in O.S.No.218/2009. The respondent-plaintiff had sued for specific performance of an agreement to sell dated 31.07.2007 in respect of suit property. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant executed a registered sale agreement for a total consideration of Rs.2,00,000/- and received an advance of Rs.1,50,000/-, agreeing to execute the sale deed on receipt of the balance amount. Despite a legal notice demanding compliance, the defendant failed to execute the sale deed, leading to the suit. The defendant filed a written statement denying the execution of the agreement and raising several defences. The Trial Court framed issues, including whether the plaintiff proved execution of the agreement and his readiness and willingness to perform his part. The plaintiff examined himself as PW.1 and two other witnesses as PWs.2 and 3, and produced six documents marked as Exs.P-1 to P-6. The defendant examined himself as DW.1 and three witnesses as DWs.2 to 4, and produced five documents marked as Exs.D-1 to D-5. The Trial Court answered all issues in favour of the plaintiff and decreed the suit, directing the defendant to execute the absolute sale deed upon receiving the balance consideration of Rs.50,000/-. The defendant appealed to the First Appellate Court, which dismissed the appeal and confirmed the decree. In the second appeal, the appellant-defendant contended that the courts below erred in decreeing the suit and that the findings were perverse. The High Court, after hearing the counsel, held that the findings of fact recorded by the courts below were concurrent and based on proper appreciation of evidence. The court noted that the plaintiff had proved the execution of the agreement and his readiness and willingness. The court found no perversity or illegality in the impugned judgments and decrees. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the decree for specific performance was upheld. No order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Specific Relief Act, 1963 - Section 16(c) - Readiness and Willingness - Plaintiff must prove continuous readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract - In the present case, the plaintiff proved readiness and willingness by issuing notice and depositing balance consideration - Held that the courts below correctly appreciated evidence and decreed specific performance (Paras 1-5). B) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Section 100 - Second Appeal - Interference with concurrent findings of fact - The High Court cannot reappreciate evidence unless the findings are perverse or based on no evidence - In this case, the findings of fact regarding execution of agreement and readiness and willingness were concurrent and not shown to be perverse - Held that no substantial question of law arises (Paras 4-5).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the judgment and decree passed by the courts below granting specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 31.07.2007 suffers from any perversity or illegality warranting interference under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
Final Decision
The Regular Second Appeal is dismissed. The judgment and decree dated 28.08.2014 passed in R.A.No.44/2013 by the Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, Chinthamani, confirming the judgment and decree dated 16.03.2013 passed in O.S.No.218/2009 by the Additional Civil Judge & JMFC, Chinthamani, are confirmed. 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
