Summary
Under agreements to sell of 1983 and 1985, the purchaser paid Rs. 1.5 lakh of the Rs. 1.65 lakh price and was put in possession. The vendors were to obtain income-tax clearance and have the revenue records corrected before the sale deed was executed. When they threatened dispossession and alienation to third parties, the purchaser sued for specific performance in 1989. The trial court and the first appellate court decreed the suit. In second appeal under Section 41 of the Punjab Courts Act, the High Court held the suit premature because the records were corrected only in 2006, and allowed specific performance only at current market value. The Supreme Court restored the concurrent decrees. Section 41 does not permit reappraisal of findings of fact, no perversity had been found, and the vendors could not both call the suit premature and assert a right to sell to others.
Issues
- Whether, in second appeal under Section 41 of the Punjab Courts Act, 1918, the High Court could reverse concurrent findings of fact that the purchaser was justified in suing for specific performance
- Whether the suit was premature because the vendors had not yet obtained the income-tax clearance and corrected the revenue records
- Whether the High Court could condition specific performance on payment of current market value
Provisions considered
- Section 41, Punjab Courts Act, 1918Although no substantial question of law need be framed, a second appeal lies only on errors of law or procedure. Findings of fact, including those based on documents, cannot be reappraised however erroneous they may seem (Randhir Kaur, Satyender). (¶¶ 13, 14, 15, 16, 17)
- Section 92, Indian Evidence Act, 1872The first appellate court rightly held that oral evidence could not be led to contradict the written terms placing on the vendors the duty to obtain clearance and correct the records. (¶ 23)
Held
- Even where Section 41 of the Punjab Courts Act dispenses with framing a substantial question of law, the High Court cannot re-examine questions of fact settled by the courts below. Interference on grounds of perversity under Kulwant Kaur requires the High Court to find perversity explicitly, which it did not do. (¶¶ 15, 17, 29, 30)
- The courts below concurrently found that the vendors admitted the agreements and the payment of Rs. 1.5 lakh, that the purchaser was in possession and ready and willing, and that the vendors' threats to alienate compelled the suit. An adverse inference arose because none of the vendors testified. (¶¶ 22, 23, 24, 26, 27)
- Having asserted in their written statement a right to alienate the property, the vendors could not blow hot and cold by also contending that the suit was premature because they had not yet obtained the clearance and corrected the records. (¶¶ 27, 28, 32)
- Nirmala Anand, where additional payment was ordered because delay was not solely the defendants' fault, was distinguishable. Here about 90% of the price had been paid and possession given, and the delay arose from the vendors' greed as prices rose, so no enhanced price could be imposed. (¶¶ 31, 32)
Result
Appeals allowed. The High Court's judgment and review order were set aside and the concurrent decrees for specific performance restored; no costs.