Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose from an agreement for sale of property in Kaspa Coimbatore between the plaintiff and defendant, with the defendant agreeing to sell for Rs. 16.20 lakhs. A part consideration of Rs. 3,60,001 was paid, and a condition required the defendant to evict tenants before executing the sale deed. The plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance, alleging readiness and willingness, but the defendant contested, denying readiness and claiming tenants had vacated. The Trial Court held the plaintiff was ready but not willing to purchase with tenants, dismissing the suit and ordering refund of the advance with interest and a charge over the property. The plaintiff appealed to the High Court, which allowed the appeal and decreed specific performance, relying on an affidavit where the plaintiff for the first time stated readiness to purchase with tenants. The defendant appealed to the Supreme Court. The core legal issues were whether the High Court erred in decreeing specific performance without re-appreciating evidence and framing points for determination, and whether it could rely on an affidavit contradicting plaint pleadings. The appellant argued the High Court failed its appellate duty under Section 96 read with Order XLI Rule 31 CPC and impermissibly allowed a change in pleadings via affidavit. The respondent contended the defendant failed to evict tenants and should not benefit from his wrong, suggesting remand for amendment. The Supreme Court analyzed that the High Court did not re-appreciate evidence or frame points, violating procedural requirements, and that affidavits cannot supplement pleadings without amendment. The Court held the High Court's judgment unsustainable, quashed it, and set aside the decree for specific performance, effectively restoring the Trial Court's dismissal but the final decision details are incomplete in the provided text.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Appellate Jurisdiction - Section 96 read with Order XLI Rule 31 CPC - First Appellate Court's Duty to Re-appreciate Evidence and Frame Points for Determination - The Supreme Court held that the High Court, as a First Appellate Court, failed to exercise its appellate jurisdiction properly by not re-appreciating the entire evidence on record and not framing points for determination based on the issues framed by the Trial Court, which is mandatory under Section 96 read with Order XLI Rule 31 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The High Court's judgment was set aside for this procedural irregularity. (Paras 3.1, 3.2) B) Contract Law - Specific Performance - Readiness and Willingness - Pleadings Cannot Be Supplemented by Affidavit at Appellate Stage - The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in relying on an affidavit filed by the plaintiff for the first time before it, which stated readiness to purchase the property with tenants, as this contradicted the plaint pleadings that required the defendant to evict tenants. Such a course is impermissible under law without amending the plaint under Order VI Rule 17 CPC, as it allows a change in stand unknown to procedural law. (Paras 3.3, 3.4, 3.5, 3.6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court, as a First Appellate Court, erred in decreeing the suit for specific performance without re-appreciating evidence, framing points for determination, and relying on an affidavit filed for the first time that contradicted the plaint pleadings
Final Decision
Supreme Court held the High Court's judgment unsustainable, quashed and set aside the impugned judgment and order, and consequently dismissed the suit for specific performance
Law Points
- Specific performance of contract requires readiness and willingness of plaintiff
- First Appellate Court must re-appreciate evidence and frame points for determination under Section 96 read with Order XLI Rule 31 of CPC
- Pleadings cannot be supplemented by affidavit at appellate stage without amendment
