Summary
A purchaser challenged reversal of concurrent decrees for specific performance. The Court held that attendance before the Sub-Registrar alone did not establish continuous readiness and willingness. His unexplained failure to deposit the balance within the decree’s deadline, followed by an extension request merely to avoid idle funds during appeal, supported refusal of relief. Earnest money was nevertheless ordered refunded.
Issues
- Whether extension of time to deposit the balance consideration established readiness and willingness.
- Whether the High Court could interfere with the concurrent findings in second appeal.
Provisions considered
- Section 16(c), Specific Relief Act, 1963Continuous readiness and willingness had to be proved from the purchaser’s conduct and surrounding circumstances; the Court found the requirement unmet. (¶¶ 7, 9, 10, 13)
Held
- The Sub-Registrar’s certificate was not conclusive proof of readiness and willingness. The purchaser offered no further evidence of continuous financial capacity and did not rebut the properly addressed registered notices calling for completion. (¶¶ 5, 6)
- Although time for deposit can be extended under Section 28, an extension does not itself prove readiness and willingness. Here there was no appellate stay, no sufficient explanation for missing the original deadline, and no special circumstance preventing payment; waiting for a favourable appeal outcome counted against the purchaser. (¶¶ 8, 9, 10, 11, 12)
- Concurrent factual findings ordinarily cannot be reappraised in second appeal. Perversity arising from serious misappreciation or omission of material evidence can, however, raise a substantial question of law justifying interference. (¶ 15)
Result
The appeal was dismissed without costs. In the particular circumstances, the earnest money was to be refunded without interest within one month, failing which it would carry interest at seven per cent.