Summary
The High Court exceeded its second-appeal jurisdiction by replacing a specific-performance decree with a refund on a reassessment of factual findings concerning the purchaser’s attorney and readiness and willingness. Although section 41 of the Punjab Courts Act did not require framing substantial questions of law, it did not authorise a fresh factual appraisal. The specific-performance decree was restored with two months to pay the balance consideration.
Issues
- Whether section 41 permitted interference with the concurrent factual findings supporting specific performance.
Provisions considered
- Section 41, Punjab Courts Act, 1918Confined second appeals to the specified legal or procedural grounds; dispensing with substantial-question formulation did not permit reversal merely for supposed factual error. (¶¶ 9–11, 16–19)
Held
- The applicable second-appeal jurisdiction did not allow correction of factual findings merely considered erroneous, even where based on documents. An error of law or the specified procedural defect had to be shown. (¶ 9–16)
- The first appellate court had considered the earlier attorney instrument and the plaintiff’s nonappearance and found readiness and willingness established. Its findings were not contrary to law, and no omitted material legal issue or qualifying procedural defect was demonstrated. (¶ 17–19)
- The defendants had accepted earnest money through the plaintiff’s son, who attended registration with the balance on the next working day after the contractual Sunday. Evidence of the plaintiff’s earlier sales supported financial capacity; the absence of a specific attorney power on the agreement date did not justify this second-appeal interference. (¶ 20–21)
Result
Appeal allowed without costs. High Court judgment set aside; specific-performance decree restored. Plaintiff allowed two months to pay the balance; defendants to execute the sale deed on receipt. If they refuse payment, plaintiff may deposit it in the executing court and seek execution.