KAMAL KUMAR versus PREMLATA JOSHI & ORS.

Citation: [2019] 1 S.C.R. 54 · Decided: 07-01-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 5 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
54
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 1 S.C.R.
KAMAL KUMAR
v.
PREMLATA JOSHI & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 4453 of 2009)
JANUARY 07, 2019
[ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE AND INDU MALHOTRA, JJ.]
Constitution of India – Art.136 – Scope of interference –
Concurrent findings of fact by lower courts – Held: The concurrent
findings of facts recorded by the two Courts below on all the material
issues are binding on Supreme Court when  there is no perversity or
illegality in the findings – In the instant case, suit for specific
performance of contract was filed in relation to the suit land – Courts
below held that the plaintiff failed to prove his readiness and
willingness to perform his part of the contract – The issue of
readiness and willingness, is the most important issue for considering
the grant of specific performance of the contract and the same
having been held by the two Courts below on appreciation of
evidence against the plaintiff, it is binding on Supreme Court – It
being essentially a question of fact, Supreme Court is not inclined
to again appreciate the entire evidence while hearing the appeal
under Art.136 of the Constitution – It is more so when the appellant
was also not able to point out any material perversity or/and illegality
in the finding so as to call for any interference therein by Supreme
Court – Specific performance – Specific Relief Act, 1963 – ss.16(c),
20, 21, 22 and 23.
Specific Performance – Essential requirement to establish
grant of  specific performance – Grant of relief of specific
performance is a discretionary and equitable relief – The material
questions, which are required to be gone into for grant of the relief
of specific performance, are whether there exists a valid and
concluded contract between the parties for sale/purchase of the
suit property; whether the plaintiff has been ready and willing to
perform his part of contract and whether he is still ready and willing
to perform his part as mentioned in the contract; whether the
plaintiff has, in fact, performed his part of the contract and, if so,
how and to what extent and in what manner he has performed and
[2019] 1 S.C.R. 54
54
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
55
whether such performance was in conformity with the terms of the
contract; whether it will be equitable to grant the relief of specific
performance to the plaintiff  against the defendant in relation to
suit property or it will cause any kind of hardship to the defendant
and, if so, how and in what manner and the extent if such relief is
eventually  granted to the plaintiff; and lastly, whether the plaintiff
is entitled for grant of any other alternative relief, namely, refund
of earnest money etc. and, if so, on what grounds – These questions
are part of the statutory requirements –  These requirements have to
be properly pleaded by the parties in their respective pleadings
and proved with the aid of evidence in accordance with law – It is
only then the Court is entitled to exercise its discretion and
accordingly grant or refuse the relief of specific performance
depending upon the case made out by the parties on facts – Specific
Relief Act, 1963 – ss.16(c), 20, 21, 22 and 23.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. In the instant case, the findings apart from being
concurrent are such that they are capable of being recorded on
appreciation of evidence adduced by the parties. These findings
are neither against the pleadings nor the evidence and nor any
principle of law. These findings are also not shown to be perverse
to the extent that no judicial person can ever record such findings.
[Para 9][56-G-H; 57-A]
2. In the case at hand, the two Courts below have gone into
the material questions in the light of pleadings and evidence and
recorded a categorical finding against the plaintiff holding that
the plaintiff was neither ready and nor willing to perform his part
of the contract and, therefore, he was not entitled to claim the
relief of specific performance of the contract against the defendants
in relation to the suit land.  It was also held that the plaintiff was
not entitled to claim any relief of refund of earnest money because
it was liable to be adjusted as agreed between them. [Para 12][57-
F-G]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 4453
of 2009.
From the Judgment and Order dated  08.01.2008 of the High
Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur in F.A. No. 808 of 2000.
KAMAL KUMAR v. PREMLATA JOSHI
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
56
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 1 S.C.R.
Navin Prakash, Adv. fo

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.