Constitution of India – Art.136 – Scope of interference – Concurrent findings of fact by lower courts – Held: The concurrent findings of facts recorded by the two Courts below on all the material issues are binding on Supreme Court when there is no perversity or illegality in the findings – In the instant case, suit for specific performance of contract was filed in relation to the suit land – Courts below held that the plaintiff failed to prove his readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract – The issue of readiness and willingness, is the most important issue for considering the grant of specific performance of the contract and the same having been held by the two Courts below on appreciation of evidence against the plaintiff, it is binding on Supreme Court – It being essentially a question of fact, Supreme Court is not inclined to again appreciate the entire evidence while hearing the appeal under Art.136 of the Constitution – It is more so when the appellant was also not able to point out any material perversity or/and illegality in the finding so as to call for any interference therein by Supreme Court – Specific performance – Specific Relief Act, 1963 – ss.16(c), 20, 21, 22 and 23.
Specific Performance – Essential requirement to establish grant of specific performance – Grant of relief of specific performance is a discretionary and equitable relief – The material questions, which are required to be gone into for grant of the relief of specific performance, are whether there exists a valid and concluded contract between the parties for sale/purchase of the suit property; whether the plaintiff has been ready and willing to perform his part of contract and whether he is still ready and willing to perform his part as mentioned in the contract; whether the plaintiff has, in fact, performed his part of the contract and, if so, how and to what extent and in what manner he has performed and whether such performance was in conformity with the terms of the contract; whether it will be equitable to grant the relief of specific performance to the plaintiff against the defendant in relation to suit property or it will cause any kind of hardship to the defendant and, if so, how and in what manner and the extent if such relief is eventually granted to the plaintiff; and lastly, whether the plaintiff is entitled for grant of any other alternative relief, namely, refund of earnest money etc. and, if so, on what grounds – These questions are part of the statutory requirements – These requirements have to be properly pleaded by the parties in their respective pleadings and proved with the aid of evidence in accordance with law – It is only then the Court is entitled to exercise its discretion and accordingly grant or refuse the relief of specific performance depending upon the case made out by the parties on facts – Specific Relief Act, 1963 – ss.16(c), 20, 21, 22 and 23.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. In the instant case, the findings apart from being concurrent are such that they are capable of being recorded on appreciation of evidence adduced by the parties. These findings are neither against the pleadings nor the evidence and nor any principle of law. These findings are also not shown to be perverse to the extent that no judicial person can ever record such findings. [Para 9][56-G-H; 57-A]
2. In the case at hand, the two Courts below have gone into the material questions in the light of pleadings and evidence and recorded a categorical finding against the plaintiff holding that the plaintiff was neither ready and nor willing to perform his part of the contract and, therefore, he was not entitled to claim the relief of specific performance of the contract against the defendants in relation to the suit land. It was also held that the plaintiff was not entitled to claim any relief of refund of earnest money because it was liable to be adjusted as agreed between them. [Para 12][57F-G]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.