P. Meenakshisundaram v. P. Vijayakumar & Anr.
Background
The appellant had mortgaged a plot with a marriage hall on it to a bank, which initiated recovery proceedings. He then agreed to sell the same property to the respondent for Rs. 19 lakh, assuring there was no encumbrance even though the loan was outstanding. After an initial cheque bounced, the parties executed a fresh agreement raising the price to Rs. 37.5 lakh, of which Rs. 18 lakh was paid as advance. The respondent later sued for specific performance (to force the sale through), while the appellant filed a counter-claim for recovery of possession, and both the trial court and the Madras High Court ruled in the respondent's favour.
Decision Breakdown
The Supreme Court reversed both lower courts, holding that the respondent-buyer was not in fact "ready and willing" to perform his part of the contract, a mandatory requirement for a court to grant specific performance, even though two courts below had found otherwise on facts. The Court found this concurrent finding "completely opposed to and contrary to the facts on record," noting discrepancies around possession and payment that undermined the buyer's claim. It therefore dismissed the specific-performance suit, allowed the appellant's counter-claim for recovery of possession, and directed a practical cash settlement: refund of the Rs. 18 lakh advance (with interest only if not paid within three months), no mesne profits owed to the appellant for the long period of wrongful possession, and no interest owed to the respondent on his advance either.
Lesson Learnt
To win a specific-performance claim and force a seller to complete a property sale, a buyer must affirmatively prove continuous readiness and willingness to pay and perform: courts can, and sometimes must, overturn even concurrent factual findings of two lower courts if the record plainly contradicts them.