Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose from an agreement to sell executed on 10.10.1976 by Ram Singh in favor of Sughar Singh for a sale consideration of Rs.56,000, with Rs.25,000 paid as advance. The time for execution was extended through documents dated 30.09.1978 and 29.09.1981, with additional payments made. Despite this, Ram Singh sold the land to defendant Nos. 2 to 5 via a registered sale deed on 23.06.1984. Sughar Singh filed Civil Suit No.254 of 1984 for specific performance, alleging defendant Nos. 2 to 5 were not bona fide purchasers. The trial court decreed the suit on 07.02.1987, holding all issues in favor of the plaintiff, including readiness and willingness. The first appellate court confirmed this on 24.08.1998. Defendant Nos. 2 to 5 filed a second appeal before the High Court, which initially remanded the matter on 26.10.2007 for reconsideration of issue No.3 regarding readiness and willingness under Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, and an additional issue on non-registration of extensions under U.P. Act No. 57 of 1976. On remand, the first appellate court again held in favor of the plaintiff on both issues. Defendant Nos. 2 to 5 filed another second appeal, and the High Court allowed it on 09.09.2010, setting aside concurrent findings solely on the ground that the plaint lacked specific averments as required under Section 16(c). Sughar Singh appealed to the Supreme Court. The appellant argued that the High Court erred in allowing the second appeal under Section 100 CPC, as no substantial question of law arose, and that readiness and willingness must be inferred from the plaint as a whole, not from specific averments alone, citing paragraphs 1-4 and 11 of the plaint. The Supreme Court analyzed the issue, emphasizing that the determination of readiness and willingness should focus on the pith and substance of the plaint, not mere formal compliance. The Court held that the High Court's interference with concurrent findings was unjustified, as the plaint adequately demonstrated the plaintiff's readiness and willingness. The decision reversed the High Court's order, restoring the decrees of the lower courts.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Second Appeal - Concurrent Findings - Section 100 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - High Court allowed second appeal and set aside concurrent findings of trial and first appellate courts on readiness and willingness under Section 16(c) of Specific Relief Act, 1963 - Supreme Court held that High Court erred in interfering with concurrent findings as no substantial question of law arose, and readiness and willingness must be inferred from plaint as a whole, not from specific averments alone (Paras 1, 3, 12). B) Specific Relief - Readiness and Willingness - Section 16(c) Specific Relief Act, 1963 - Plaintiff sought specific performance of agreement to sell dated 10.10.1976 - High Court held plaint lacked specific averments as required under Section 16(c) - Supreme Court held that readiness and willingness must be determined by reading plaint as a whole, focusing on pith and substance, not mere letter and form, and plaintiff's averments in paragraphs 1-4 and 11 satisfied requirement (Paras 3.1, 3.2, 12). C) Property Law - Agreement to Sell - Extension of Time - Registration - Transfer of Property Act, 1882 and U.P. Act No. 57 of 1976 - Agreement to sell executed on 10.10.1976 with extensions dated 30.09.1978 and 29.09.1981 - High Court remanded matter for additional issue on effect of non-registration of extensions under U.P. amendment - First appellate court held registration not mandatory after reconsideration - Supreme Court did not disturb this finding, focusing on readiness and willingness issue (Paras 2.10, 2.11).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court erred in allowing the second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, by setting aside concurrent findings on readiness and willingness under Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, and whether the plaint contained necessary averments regarding readiness and willingness
Final Decision
Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned judgment and order of the High Court dated 09.09.2010, and restored the judgment and decree passed by the trial court and confirmed by the first appellate court
Law Points
- Specific performance
- readiness and willingness under Section 16(c) of Specific Relief Act
- 1963
- concurrent findings
- second appeal under Section 100 CPC
- plaint averments
- agreement to sell
- extension of time
- registration requirements under Transfer of Property Act and U.P. Act No. 57 of 1976
