Case Note & Summary
The appellant/plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell, declaration, and injunction in respect of suit property. The trial court dismissed the suit, and the first appellate court confirmed the dismissal. The plaintiff then filed a regular second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench, dismissed the appeal, holding that the concurrent findings of fact by the courts below were based on evidence and not perverse. The plaintiff failed to prove that he was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract as required under Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. The court noted that the plaintiff did not examine any witnesses to prove the agreement or his financial capacity. The appeal was dismissed with costs.
Headnote
A) Specific Relief Act, 1963 - Section 16(c) - Readiness and Willingness - The plaintiff must prove continuous readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract from the date of agreement till the decree. The court held that the plaintiff failed to adduce any evidence to show that he was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. (Paras 1-10)
B) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Section 100 - Regular Second Appeal - Interference with Concurrent Findings - The High Court in a regular second appeal cannot interfere with concurrent findings of fact unless they are perverse or based on no evidence. The trial court and first appellate court concurrently held that the plaintiff failed to prove the agreement and readiness and willingness. (Paras 1-10)
C) Specific Relief Act, 1963 - Section 20 - Discretionary Relief - Specific performance is a discretionary relief and the court may refuse to grant it if the plaintiff has not come with clean hands or has failed to prove readiness and willingness. (Paras 1-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract for specific performance of an agreement to sell?
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the regular second appeal with costs, confirming the judgments of the trial court and first appellate court.
Law Points
- Specific performance
- Readiness and willingness
- Section 16(c) Specific Relief Act
- 1963
- Concurrent findings of fact
- Regular second appeal
- Section 100 CPC
Case Details
2015 LawText (KAR) (08) 38
Regular Second Appeal No.5763 of 2010 (SP)
Sri. Hanumanthareddy Sahukar (for appellant), Sri. A.S. Patil (for respondents 3 to 8)
Sri. Nagappa S/o Gurusiddappa Indi
Smt. Neelavva W/o Shivappa Chebbi @ Honakunti (deceased) and others
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Civil suit for specific performance of contract, declaration and injunction.
Remedy Sought
Plaintiff sought specific performance of an agreement to sell, declaration of title, and injunction against defendants.
Filing Reason
Plaintiff claimed that defendant No.1 agreed to sell suit property to him for Rs. 1,00,000 and executed an agreement to sell, but later refused to execute the sale deed.
Previous Decisions
Trial court dismissed the suit on 21.12.2001; first appellate court dismissed the appeal on 23.02.2010.
Issues
Whether the plaintiff proved the agreement to sell?
Whether the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract?
Submissions/Arguments
Plaintiff argued that the agreement was proved and he was ready and willing to perform.
Defendants contended that the agreement was not proved and plaintiff failed to show readiness and willingness.
Ratio Decidendi
In a regular second appeal under Section 100 CPC, the High Court cannot interfere with concurrent findings of fact unless they are perverse or based on no evidence. The plaintiff failed to prove readiness and willingness as required under Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963.
Judgment Excerpts
This is a plaintiff’s regular second appeal, against the judgment and decree dated 23.02.2010 made in R.A. No.190/2009 on the file of the Fast Track Court-II, Dhrawad, sitting at Hubballi, confirming the judgment and decree of the trial court dated 21.12.2001 made in O.S. No.652/1999, on the file of the Principal Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.), Hubballi, dismissing the suit for specific performance, with costs of defendant Nos.3 to 8.
Procedural History
Plaintiff filed O.S. No.652/1999 for specific performance. Trial court dismissed suit on 21.12.2001. Plaintiff appealed in R.A. No.190/2009, which was dismissed on 23.02.2010. Plaintiff then filed Regular Second Appeal No.5763/2010, which was dismissed on 10.08.2015.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Section 100
- Specific Relief Act, 1963: Section 16(c), Section 20
