Summary
The Court restored a decree awarding double the earnest money rather than specific performance. On its interpretation of the particular sale-agreement clause, payment of that named amount was the contractual substitute for the seller’s failure to execute the deed. The High Court had also allowed the second appeal without framing a substantial question of law. Concurrent findings of the buyer’s readiness and willingness remained undisturbed.
Issues
- Whether the particular contractual substitute-payment clause warranted refusal of specific performance.
- Whether the High Court complied with the requirement to frame a substantial question of law.
Provisions considered
- Section 100, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908Found that the High Court overturned the lower courts in second appeal without framing the required substantial question of law. (¶ 6.1)
Held
- The concurrent findings that the buyer was ready and willing did not require interference under Article 136. Those findings did not themselves resolve whether the contract and circumstances justified specific performance. (¶ 6)
- Clause 2 stipulated double the advance if the seller failed or refused to execute within the stipulated time. On the Court’s construction, this named sum supplied the substitute performance contemplated by the parties; the lower courts correctly awarded Rs.4 lakh against the Rs.2 lakh advance. (¶ 6.2-6.4)
- The Court applied the distinction in P. D’Souza concerning a sum payable in substitution for performance at the relevant party’s election. Its conclusion rested on this clause, rather than treating every damages stipulation as an automatic bar to specific performance. The High Court had additionally failed to frame a substantial question of law. (¶¶ 6.1, 6.4, 7)
Result
Appeals against the review rejection and second-appeal judgment allowed; the lower courts’ Rs.4 lakh recovery decree was restored. The appeal concerning dismissal of the cross-objection was disposed of.