High Court of Karnataka Dismisses Second Appeal in Specific Performance Suit — Concurrent Findings of Fact Not Interfered With Under Section 100 CPC. The plaintiff's readiness and willingness to perform the contract and the suit being within limitation were concurrent findings of fact not open to challenge in second appeal.

High Court: Karnataka High Court Bench: BENGALURU In Favour of Prosecution

Admin

2026-05-18 19:30:19

Font size:

Case Note & Summary

The case involves a second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) filed by the appellants (defendants) against the judgment and decree dated 27.10.2006 passed in R.A. No.190/2002 by the Senior Civil Judge, Channagiri, which confirmed the decree for specific performance of a contract for sale of land. The original plaintiff, R.V. Shet, had filed a suit for specific performance alleging that the defendants agreed to sell a certain property and received an advance, but failed to execute the sale deed. The trial court decreed the suit, and the first appellate court confirmed it. The appellants challenged the concurrent findings in the second appeal. The High Court, after hearing the parties, found that the courts below had appreciated the evidence and recorded concurrent findings of fact regarding the plaintiff's readiness and willingness to perform the contract and the suit being within limitation. The High Court held that no substantial question of law arose for consideration and dismissed the appeal, confirming the decree for specific performance.

Headnote

A) Civil Procedure Code - Second Appeal - Section 100 CPC - Substantial Question of Law - The High Court cannot interfere with concurrent findings of fact unless they are perverse or based on no evidence. The appellant failed to demonstrate any substantial question of law. (Paras 1-10)

B) Specific Performance - Readiness and Willingness - Section 16(c) Specific Relief Act, 1963 - The plaintiff must prove continuous readiness and willingness to perform the contract. The courts below found that the plaintiff had deposited the balance sale consideration and was ready to perform. (Paras 5-8)

C) Limitation - Suit for Specific Performance - Article 54 Limitation Act, 1963 - The suit was filed within three years from the date fixed for performance. The courts below correctly held that the suit was not barred by limitation. (Paras 6-9)

Issue of Consideration

Whether the concurrent findings of fact by the courts below regarding the plaintiff's readiness and willingness to perform the contract and the suit being within limitation warrant interference under Section 100 CPC

Final Decision

The High Court dismissed the second appeal, confirming the decree for specific performance passed by the trial court and affirmed by the first appellate court.

Law Points

Second appeal under Section 100 CPC
concurrent findings of fact
substantial question of law
specific performance
readiness and willingness
limitation

Case Details

2024 LawText (KAR) (02) 32

R.S.A. No.170/2007 (SP) C/W R.S.A. No.171/2007 (SP)

2024-02-23

H.P. Sandesh

Sri P.M. Siddamallappa for appellants, Sri Shreeram T. Nayak for respondents

Smt. Lakshmamma, Sri Basavaraju, Sri Hanumanthappa (LRs of deceased M.K. Shivaji Rao)

Sri R.V. Shet (deceased by LRs) and Smt. Sharadabai

Nature of Litigation

Second appeal against concurrent findings in a suit for specific performance of contract for sale of land

Remedy Sought

Appellants sought to set aside the decree for specific performance granted by the trial court and confirmed by the first appellate court

Filing Reason

Appellants challenged the concurrent findings of fact regarding readiness and willingness and limitation

Previous Decisions

Trial court decreed the suit for specific performance; first appellate court confirmed the decree

Issues

Whether the concurrent findings of fact regarding the plaintiff's readiness and willingness to perform the contract are perverse or based on no evidence Whether the suit for specific performance was barred by limitation

Submissions/Arguments

Appellants argued that the plaintiff was not ready and willing to perform the contract and that the suit was barred by limitation Respondents supported the concurrent findings and argued that no substantial question of law arose

Ratio Decidendi

In a second appeal under Section 100 CPC, the High Court cannot interfere with concurrent findings of fact unless they are shown to be perverse or based on no evidence. The appellant failed to raise any substantial question of law.

Judgment Excerpts

The appellant failed to demonstrate any substantial question of law. The courts below have concurrently found that the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform the contract.

Procedural History

The original suit for specific performance was decreed by the trial court. The first appeal by the defendants was dismissed by the Senior Civil Judge, Channagiri, on 27.10.2006. The defendants then filed the present second appeal under Section 100 CPC before the High Court of Karnataka.