Case Note & Summary
The present second appeals arise out of a suit for specific performance of a contract for sale of land. The appellants, who are the legal representatives of the original plaintiff, filed O.S. No. 104/2006 seeking specific performance of an agreement of sale dated 20.06.2005. The trial court dismissed the suit holding that the plaintiff failed to prove readiness and willingness and that the suit was barred by limitation. The first appellate court in R.A. No. 82/2012 confirmed the dismissal. Aggrieved, the appellants filed the present second appeals under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The High Court framed the substantial question of law as to whether the concurrent findings of fact were perverse. After hearing the counsel, the court noted that both courts below had concurrently found that the plaintiff did not have the financial capacity to perform the contract and that the suit was filed beyond the period of limitation. The High Court held that these findings were based on evidence and did not suffer from any perversity. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed, and the concurrent judgments were upheld.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Second Appeal - Section 100 CPC - Substantial Question of Law - Concurrent findings of fact cannot be interfered with in second appeal unless shown to be perverse or based on no evidence - The court held that the findings of the trial court and first appellate court regarding readiness and willingness and limitation were based on appreciation of evidence and did not give rise to any substantial question of law (Paras 1-10). B) Specific Performance - Readiness and Willingness - Limitation - The plaintiff must prove continuous readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract and that the suit is filed within limitation - The courts below concurrently found that the plaintiff failed to prove readiness and willingness and that the suit was barred by limitation - The High Court upheld these findings (Paras 5-10).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the courts below regarding readiness and willingness of the plaintiff and limitation are perverse or suffer from any error of law warranting interference under Section 100 CPC.
Final Decision
Both second appeals are dismissed. The judgment and decree dated 16.11.2017 in R.A. No. 82/2012 and the judgment and decree dated 30.07.2012 in O.S. No. 104/2006 are confirmed.
Law Points
- Second appeal under Section 100 CPC
- concurrent findings of fact
- substantial question of law
- readiness and willingness
- limitation
- specific performance
