Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, original defendants, challenged the concurrent judgments of the trial court and appellate court decreeing the suit for specific performance of contract filed by the respondents. The suit was based on an agreement to sell agricultural land executed in 1995. The trial court decreed the suit in 2015, and the appellate court confirmed the decree in 2017. The petitioners argued that the respondents failed to prove readiness and willingness to perform the contract and that the appellate court did not comply with Order 41 Rule 31 CPC. The High Court examined the evidence and found that the respondents had proved their readiness and willingness by depositing the balance consideration in court and issuing notices. The petitioners failed to produce any evidence to show that they were ready to perform their part. The court held that the concurrent findings of fact were based on proper appreciation of evidence and were not perverse. The High Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that there was no ground to interfere under Article 227 of the Constitution.
Headnote
A) 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 the contract till the date of decree - The court held that the petitioners failed to adduce any evidence to show that they had the financial capacity or made any efforts to perform their obligations under the agreement - Held that the concurrent findings of the courts below on this issue are based on proper appreciation of evidence and do not call for interference (Paras 6-8). B) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Order 41 Rule 31 - Judgment of Appellate Court - The appellate court must comply with Order 41 Rule 31 by framing points for determination, discussing evidence, and giving reasons - The court found that the appellate court had framed points and discussed evidence adequately - Held that there was no procedural infirmity warranting interference (Para 9). C) Constitution of India - Article 227 - Supervisory Jurisdiction - The High Court under Article 227 does not act as a court of appeal and cannot re-appreciate evidence to reverse concurrent findings of fact unless there is a perverse finding or jurisdictional error - The court held that the findings of the courts below were based on evidence and were not perverse - Held that the petition under Article 227 was not maintainable (Paras 10-11).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the courts below regarding the failure of the petitioners to prove readiness and willingness to perform the contract warrant interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the concurrent findings of the courts below decreeing the suit for specific performance.
Law Points
- Specific performance
- readiness and willingness
- concurrent findings
- interference under Article 227
- limitation
- adverse possession
