Summary
The Court restored a specific-performance decree against the remaining contesting seller. The buyer’s payment depended on the seller first surveying and demarcating the land, which had not occurred. The High Court improperly reversed supported concurrent findings through reappreciation in second appeal. Readiness and willingness were pleaded and proved; the defaulting seller could not rely on price escalation or her own nonperformance to defeat relief.
Issues
- Whether the High Court could reverse the concurrent factual findings in second appeal.
- Whether survey was a prerequisite to payment and whether the buyer proved readiness and willingness.
- Whether time and subsequent price escalation defeated specific performance.
Provisions considered
- Sections 100 and 103, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908The reproduced provisions limited second-appellate factual interference; no material irregularity or perversity justified reappraisal here. (¶ 14–16)
Held
- The contract had to be read as a whole: the buyer’s payment and completion obligations depended on the seller’s survey and boundary demarcation. Supported concurrent findings that no survey occurred could not be displaced merely by another view of the oral evidence. (¶ 10–16)
- Time was not essential on these terms and conduct, including the seller’s willingness to accept delayed payment with interest. The judgment left reconsideration of broader propositions about immovable-property contracts for an appropriate future case. (¶ 18–20)
- The pleadings, documents and testimony established readiness and willingness throughout. The seller who failed her prior obligation could not obtain refusal of equitable relief by invoking her own wrong or price escalation in these circumstances. (¶ 21–23)
Result
Appeal allowed as pursued against respondent No. 2; High Court judgment set aside and trial-court decree restored, without costs. Other respondents had settled.