Summary
The Court declined to reopen concurrent findings sustaining specific performance of a land-sale agreement between brothers. The agreement’s genuineness and the purchaser’s readiness and willingness were supported by evidence, and the forgery defence had been rejected throughout. No perversity or legal error justified interference with the exercise of discretion under the then applicable law.
Issues
- Whether the concurrent findings and decree for specific performance warranted interference under Article 136.
Held
- The courts had found the agreement genuine, including on the defendant’s own witnesses, and found that the purchaser performed and remained ready and willing while the vendor breached. The renewed forgery submission sought another appreciation of the same evidence. (¶¶ 13, 18–19)
- The findings were not perverse, contrary to evidence or pleadings, or inconsistent with law. In the then discretionary specific-performance framework, the concurrent grant afforded no basis for interference under Article 136 in this case. (¶ 14–17)
Result
Appeal dismissed; decree granting specific performance and the concurrent judgments below upheld.