Ramathal v. Maruthathal and Ors
Background
The buyer (Ramathal, as legal representative) entered an agreement in 1986 to purchase land from the seller (Maruthathal) for Rs. 1,01,000 per acre, with the seller obligated to survey and demarcate the property before full payment was due. When the seller failed to conduct the survey despite notice, the buyer sued for specific performance. The trial court and first appellate court both ruled for the buyer, but the Madras High Court, in a second appeal, reversed these concurrent findings and ruled for the seller.
Decision Breakdown
The Supreme Court held that the High Court had exceeded its jurisdiction under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code by re-appreciating evidence and overturning concurrent factual findings of the lower courts in a second appeal, since such interference is permitted only where findings are perverse or unsupported by evidence: mere possibility of two views is not enough. On merits, the Court also held that time was not of the essence of the contract, that the buyer had pleaded and proved readiness and willingness to perform as required under Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, and that the seller could not resist specific performance merely because property prices had since risen or because the seller had opportunistically entered another sale contract during litigation. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's judgment, and restored the trial court's decree of specific performance, with no order as to costs.
Lesson Learnt
A High Court cannot ordinarily substitute its own view of the facts for the concurrent findings of two lower courts in a second appeal unless those findings are perverse; and a seller who delays or evades their own contractual obligations (like conducting a promised survey) cannot later use rising property prices to escape specific performance of a sale agreement.