Summary
A proposed purchaser challenged concurrent refusal of specific performance, relying on conditional home-loan approval and assertions of substantial family income. The Court held that the unfulfilled loan conditions and absence of supporting financial records left readiness and willingness unproved on these facts. An earlier bank assessment for another property did not discharge that burden. The appeals were dismissed and the purchaser’s Supreme Court deposit ordered returned.
Issues
- Whether conditional loan approval and uncorroborated income assertions proved financial readiness.
- Whether the concurrent refusal of specific performance warranted interference.
Held
- Financial capacity, rather than continuous possession of cash, is relevant, but it must be established through reliable evidence. The cited precedent sustaining a decree on different concurrent findings did not establish readiness here. (¶¶ 11, 14, 15)
- The only loan approval depended on income-tax and property documents and execution of a stamped agreement; disbursement never became available. Independent assertions of Rs.80 lakh annual income were unsupported by tax records or bank statements. An earlier assessment of borrowing capacity for another property was insufficient. (¶¶ 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 15)
- The concurrent findings remained supportable even on reappraisal, and no illegality justified disturbing the refusal of specific performance. (¶¶ 14, 15, 16)
Result
The appeals were dismissed, leaving the refusal of specific performance and the trial court’s refund decree undisturbed. The Rs.3.5 crore deposited in the Supreme Court was directed to be returned to the appellant with accrued fixed-deposit interest in accordance with the rules.