Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Mr. Jagadish Poonja, filed a Regular First Appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, against the judgment and decree dated 30.06.2009 passed by the II Additional District Judge, Dakshina Kannada, Mangalore, in R.A. No. 47/2007, which confirmed the dismissal of his suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell dated 01.08.1995. The appellant claimed that the respondents, including The South Canara Hotel Complex Pvt. Ltd. and several individuals, had agreed to sell certain property to him for a total consideration of Rs. 15,00,000/-, and that he had paid an advance of Rs. 1,00,000/-. He alleged that despite his readiness and willingness to pay the balance amount, the respondents failed to execute the sale deed. The trial court dismissed the suit, holding that the appellant had not proved his readiness and willingness to perform the contract. The first appellate court concurred. In the High Court, the appellant argued that the courts below erred in appreciating the evidence and that he had demonstrated readiness and willingness. The respondents supported the concurrent findings. The High Court, after re-appreciating the evidence, held that the appellant failed to prove that he had the financial capacity or made any effort to arrange the balance consideration. The court noted that the appellant did not produce any bank statements or other evidence to show that he had the funds. The court also observed that the appellant did not issue any notice demanding performance until after a long delay. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the concurrent findings of fact and confirming that the appellant was not entitled to specific performance.
Headnote
A) Specific Relief - 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 from the date of agreement till the date of decree - The court found that the plaintiff failed to adduce sufficient evidence to show that he had the necessary funds or was otherwise ready to perform - Held that the trial court and first appellate court rightly dismissed the suit (Paras 10-15). B) Civil Procedure - Appeal - Interference with Concurrent Findings - Section 96 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - In a regular first appeal, the High Court can re-appreciate evidence but will not lightly interfere with concurrent findings of fact unless perverse or based on no evidence - The court found no perversity in the concurrent findings that the plaintiff was not ready and willing - Held that the appeal is devoid of merit (Paras 16-20).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the appellant-plaintiff is entitled to a decree for specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 01.08.1995 and whether the concurrent findings of fact by the courts below warrant interference in this regular first appeal.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the appeal, confirming the judgment and decree of the first appellate court and trial court, holding that the appellant failed to prove readiness and willingness to perform the contract.
Law Points
- Specific performance
- Readiness and willingness
- Section 16(c) Specific Relief Act
- 1963
- Concurrent findings of fact
- Interference in appeal
- Section 96 CPC
