A. Shahul Hameed v. N. Malligarjuna
Background
A purchaser (plaintiff) entered into a 2010 agreement to buy land for Rs. 9,30,000, paying Rs. 9,00,000 as earnest money, with the balance Rs. 30,000 due at the time of the sale deed. When the sellers later became evasive and demanded more money, the purchaser issued a legal notice and then sued for specific performance. The Trial Court and First Appellate Court both found the sale agreement genuine, but the First Appellate Court denied specific performance on the ground that the purchaser had not proved he was "ready and willing" to perform in time, ordering only a refund with interest instead; the Madras High Court, in second appeal, went further and held the agreement was never really meant as a sale at all but was a security document for an unrelated transaction, while raising the interest-bearing refund amount.
Decision Breakdown
The Supreme Court held that the High Court, exercising its limited second-appeal jurisdiction under Section 100 CPC, had wrongly reopened and reversed the concurrent factual findings of the Trial Court and First Appellate Court on the genuineness of the sale agreement, without showing any perversity or illegality in those findings: this exceeded what Section 100 CPC permits. On the separate question of "readiness and willingness" under Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, the Court held that having paid nearly 93% of the sale price, and having promptly issued a legal notice once the sellers became evasive and demanded more money (to which the sellers never even replied), the purchaser had sufficiently shown continuous readiness and willingness: a short delay in sending the notice, when the suit itself was filed within the limitation period, does not defeat that requirement. The Court therefore restored the original Trial Court decree granting specific performance in full.
Lesson Learnt
In a specific performance suit, courts assess a buyer's "readiness and willingness" to complete a purchase from the totality of conduct, such as having paid the bulk of the price, rather than from technical delay in sending a notice, so long as the lawsuit itself is filed within the limitation period; and appellate courts in a second appeal cannot re-weigh evidence to overturn concurrent factual findings of the lower courts without showing a clear legal error.