Summary
The Supreme Court declined to disturb concurrent dismissal of a suit for specific performance. The courts below had found that the plaintiff failed to establish readiness and willingness and that the earnest money was adjustable under the parties’ agreement. No material perversity or illegality justified reappreciation of evidence under Article 136. The appeal was dismissed.
Issues
- Whether concurrent findings on readiness and willingness warranted interference.
- What matters required pleading and proof for specific performance under the statutory framework applied to the dispute.
Provisions considered
- Section 16(c), under the pre-amendment framework applied, Specific Relief Act, 1963Failure to prove readiness and willingness supported refusal of specific performance on the concurrent factual findings. (¶¶ 10, 11, 12, 13)
Held
- The concurrent findings were supported by the pleadings and evidence and were not perverse or contrary to law. No basis existed for fresh appreciation of the evidence in this appeal. (¶¶ 8, 9, 13)
- Under the framework applied, the court had to examine the concluded contract, readiness and willingness, actual performance, equitable considerations and alternative relief. The necessary statutory requirements had to be pleaded and proved. (¶¶ 10, 11)
- The plaintiff failed to establish readiness and willingness. Refund of earnest money was also refused because it was liable to adjustment as agreed between the parties; the Court found no material illegality warranting interference. (¶¶ 12, 13, 14)
Result
Appeal dismissed; concurrent refusal of specific performance and earnest-money refund upheld.