Jaichand (Dead) Through LRs & Ors. vs. Sahnulal & Anr.
Background
The original defendant (owner of a small plot of land in Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh, referred to in parts of the judgment as "Juglal"/"Jugalal") had entered into a 1996 agreement to sell the land to the plaintiff for Rs. 50,000 per acre, receiving Rs. 6,000 as earnest money, but the sale deed was never registered. The plaintiff sued for specific performance only in 2003, roughly seven to eight years after the agreement, and after the defendant's death, his legal heirs (the present appellants) contested the suit. The trial court decreed specific performance in the plaintiff's favour; the first appellate court modified this to a refund of earnest money instead, on grounds of hardship and doubts about the plaintiff's readiness and willingness; and the High Court, in a second appeal, restored the trial court's decree of specific performance, prompting the defendants' legal heirs to appeal to the Supreme Court.
Decision Breakdown
The Supreme Court found that the High Court had misread the record: it wrongly assumed the first appellate court had denied specific performance only on the narrow ground of "hardship" under Section 20(2)(b) of the Specific Relief Act, when in fact the first appellate court had also independently doubted the plaintiff's readiness and willingness to perform the contract: a factual finding the High Court never addressed. The Court held that a second appeal under Section 100 CPC can be entertained only on a genuine "substantial question of law," and a High Court cannot reappreciate evidence or overturn factual findings of the first appellate court (the final court of fact) merely to reach a different conclusion; here, the question framed by the High Court was not even a proper question of law, let alone a substantial one. Accordingly, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment, declined to restore the specific performance decree given the eight-year delay in filing suit and the plaintiff's own admission of the land's current market value, and instead directed the defendants' heirs to pay the plaintiffs Rs. 3,50,000 (representing the present value of the land) within eight weeks, failing which the original decree for specific performance would stand revived.
Lesson Learnt
A High Court's power to interfere with facts in a second appeal is strictly limited to genuine, substantial questions of law. It cannot re-weigh evidence or reverse a lower appellate court's factual findings on delay, readiness and willingness merely because it disagrees, and litigants seeking specific performance of a property sale should act promptly rather than waiting years to enforce their rights.