2019 (1) TMI 1860 - SC - Indian Laws

Civil suit - specific performance of the contract in relation to the suit land - HELD THAT - The concurrent findings of facts recorded by the two Courts below on all the material issues are binding on this Court. It is much more so when we are unable to notice any kind of perversity or illegality in the findings - the findings apart from being concurrent are such that they are capable of being recorded on appreciation of evidence adduced by the parties. These findings are neither against the pleadings nor the evidence and nor any principle of law. These findings are also not shown to be perverse to the extent that no judicial person can ever record such findings. It is a settled principle of law that the grant of relief of specific performance is a discretionary and equitable relief. The material questions which are required to be gone into for grant of the relief of specific performance are First whether there exists a valid and concluded contract between the parties for sale/purchase of the suit property; Second whether the plaintiff has been ready and willing to perform his part of contract and whether he is still ready and willing to perform his part as mentioned in the contract; Third whether the plaintiff has in fact performed his part of the contract and if so how and to what extent and in what manner he has performed and whether such performance was in conformity with the terms of the contract; Fourth whether it will be equitable to grant the relief of specific performance to the plaintiff against the defendant in relation to suit property or it will cause any kind of hardship to the defendant and if so how and in what manner and the extent if such relief is eventually granted to the plaintiff; and lastly whether the plaintiff is entitled for grant of any other alternative relief namely refund of earnest money etc. and if so on what grounds - the aforementioned questions are part of the statutory requirements (See Sections 16 (c) 20 21 22 23 of the Specific Relief Act 1963 and the forms 47/48 of Appendix A to C of the Code of Civil Procedure). These requirements have to be properly pleaded by the parties in their respective pleadings and proved with the aid of evidence in accordance with law. It is only then the Court is entitled to exercise its discretion and accordingly grant or refuse the relief of specific performance depending upon the case made out by the parties on facts. Both the Courts below held that the plaintiff has failed to prove his readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract. The issue of readiness and willingness in our view is the most important issue for considering the grant of specific performance of the contract and the same having been held by the two Courts below on appreciation of evidence against the plaintiff it is binding on this Court. It being essentially a question of fact this Court is not inclined to again appreciate the entire evidence while hearing the appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution. It is more so when the appellant was also not able to point out any material perversity or/and illegality in the finding so as to call for any interference therein by this Court. Appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
- Appeal against judgment and order of High Court
- Claim for specific performance of contract
- Findings of Trial Court and High Court
- Grant of relief of specific performance
- Statutory requirements for specific performance
- Plaintiff's readiness and willingness to perform the contract

Analysis:
The appeal before the Supreme Court was against the final judgment and order passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, which affirmed the judgment and decree of the Trial Court dismissing the suit filed by the plaintiff for specific performance of a contract related to the suit land. The Trial Court's decision was contested through a first appeal, leading to the present appeal before the Supreme Court. Both lower courts had recorded concurrent findings on all material issues, which the Supreme Court found binding. The Court emphasized that the grant of specific performance is a discretionary and equitable relief, subject to various statutory requirements outlined in the Specific Relief Act, 1963, and the Code of Civil Procedure.

The key considerations for granting specific performance include the existence of a valid contract, the plaintiff's readiness and willingness to perform, actual performance in conformity with the terms, equity in granting the relief, and entitlement to alternative reliefs like refund of earnest money. The Supreme Court highlighted that these requirements must be properly pleaded and proved with evidence for the Court to exercise its discretion. In this case, both lower courts had examined these aspects based on pleadings and evidence, concluding that the plaintiff had not demonstrated readiness and willingness to perform the contract. As readiness and willingness are crucial for specific performance, the Court upheld the findings of the lower courts, stating that it would not reevaluate the evidence unless there were material perversities or illegalities, which were not demonstrated by the appellant.

Ultimately, the Supreme Court found no merit in the appeal, as the lower courts' findings were based on factual assessments and in accordance with the law. The appeal was dismissed accordingly, affirming the decisions of the Trial Court and the High Court regarding the plaintiff's claim for specific performance of the contract related to the suit land.