Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Kamal Kumar, filed a civil suit against Premlata Joshi and others seeking specific performance of a contract for sale of suit land. The trial court dismissed the suit on 31.08.2000, holding that the plaintiff failed to prove readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract. The High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur affirmed this decision on 08.01.2008 in F.A. No.808 of 2000. The appellant then appealed to the Supreme Court by special leave. The Supreme Court heard arguments and examined the record. The Court noted that the findings of fact by both lower courts were concurrent and based on evidence, with no perversity or illegality. The Court reiterated that specific performance is a discretionary and equitable relief, and the plaintiff must plead and prove readiness and willingness under Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. Since the plaintiff failed to do so, the concurrent findings were binding. The Court also noted that the plaintiff was not entitled to refund of earnest money as it was adjusted. The appeal was dismissed, affirming the lower courts' decisions.
Headnote
A) Specific Relief Act - Specific Performance - Readiness and Willingness - Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 - The plaintiff must plead and prove readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract; failure to do so disentitles him to specific performance. The concurrent findings of the trial court and High Court that the plaintiff was not ready and willing were binding on the Supreme Court in the absence of perversity. (Paras 10-13) B) Specific Relief Act - Discretionary Relief - Equitable Considerations - Sections 20, 21, 22, 23 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 - Grant of specific performance is discretionary and equitable; courts must consider whether it would cause hardship to the defendant and whether alternative relief like refund of earnest money is appropriate. (Paras 10-11) C) Civil Procedure Code - Concurrent Findings - Binding Nature - Article 136 of the Constitution of India - Concurrent findings of fact based on evidence are binding on the Supreme Court unless shown to be perverse or illegal. The Court declined to re-appreciate evidence. (Paras 8-9, 13)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the appellant-plaintiff was entitled to specific performance of contract for sale of suit land and whether the concurrent findings of fact regarding lack of readiness and willingness were binding on the Supreme Court.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the judgments of the Trial Court and High Court. The plaintiff was not entitled to specific performance or refund of earnest money.
Law Points
- Specific performance is discretionary and equitable relief
- Readiness and willingness is essential for grant of specific performance
- Concurrent findings of fact binding on Supreme Court unless perverse
- Plaintiff must plead and prove readiness and willingness
- Refund of earnest money may be alternative relief
