RAMATHAL versus MARUTHATHAL & ORS.

Citation: [2017] 8 S.C.R. 613 · Decided: 22-08-2017 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: N.V. RAMANA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2017] 8 S.C.R. 613 
RAMATHAL 
v. 
MARUTHATHAL & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 10741of2017) 
A 
AUGUST 22, 2017 
B 
(N.V. RAMANA AND PRAFULLA C. PANT, JJ.) 
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: 
s.100 - Second appeal, interference on question of fact -
When appreciation of evidence suffers from material irregularities 
C 
and when there is perversity in the findings of the. court which are 
not based on any material, court is empowered to interfere on a 
question of fact as well - Unless and until there is absolute perversity, 
it would not be appropriate for the High Court to interfere in a 
question of fact just because two views are possible - Jn such D 
circumstances, High Court should restrain itse(f from exercising the 
jurisdiction on a question offact. 
s. J 00 - Substantial question of law - Agreement of sale of 
land - Stipulation in the agreement that the seller would conduct a 
·survey for identification of the boundaries of the suit land - Non-
E 
compliance by the seller - Suit for specific performance - Trial 
court decreed the suit - Appellate court upheld the decree -
Concurrent finding of two courts that the survey was not conducted 
by the seller - High Court set aside the judgment on the ground 
that buyer was unable to prove that suit land was not measured and 
demarcated by the seller - High court's order challenged on the 
F 
ground that the same was beyond the scope of second appeal under 
s.100; that seller was not able to prove that survey was conducted 
which was condition precedent for payment of agreed consideration 
and that the buyer was ready and willing to perform his part of 
contract - On appeal, held: Perusal of various conditions stipulated 
in the agreement makes it clear that the reciprocal promises were 
G 
dependent on each other - The view taken by High Court, regarding 
the interpretation of the contract wherein the execution of the 
contract was independent of the payment obligation, is erroneous 
and cannot be sustained in the eyes of law as the contract needs to 
613 
H 
614 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017] 8 S.C.R. 
A 
be read as whole and not in piecemeal approach as undertaken by 
the High Court - Therefore. the buyers payment obligation and the 
obligation to execute the contract, was dependent upon the 
measurement to be conducted by the seller - DWl and DW2 stated 
that the survey was conducted subsequent to the execution of the 
B agreement, but no documents were marked on behalf of the seller 
evidencing this fact - When both the courts below took a view that 
evidence of the witness was not believable on detailed consideration 
of their cross examination and non-availability of documentary 
evidence to prove that survey was conducted, the High Court should 
not have interfered with such factual findings by taking into 
C consideration the oral evidence of witnesses - The crucial fact that 
the survey was not conducted had attained finality by the earlier 
judgment of the High Court - Therefore, once trial court and first 
appellate court which are the fact finding courts have come to the 
specific conclusion that the plaintiff is entitled for specific 
D performance of the agreement of sale, the High Court on re-
appreciation of evidence could not have upset the factual findings 
in second appeal - Specific Relief Act, 1963. 
Specific Relief Act, 1963: 
Escalation of prices cannot be a ground for denying the relief 
E of specific performance - Specific performance is an equitable relief 
and granting the relief is the discretion of the court - The discretion 
has to be exercised by the court judicially and within the settled 
principles of law - Equity. 
s.l 6(c) - Essential ingredients - Proof of readiness and 
F willingness to perform - In a suit for specific performance, burden 
is always on the plaintiff to aver and prove that they are always 
ready and willing to perform their part of the contract throughout -
s.16(c) of the Act mandates that not only there be a plea of readiness 
and willingness but it also has to be proved by acceptable evidence 
- Requirement offulfi!ling the conditions under s. l 6(c) of the Act, 
G is a condition precedent for obtaining the relief of specific 
performance. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. It was not appropriate for the High Court to 
H embark upon the task of re appreciation of evidence in the second 
RAMATHAL v. MARUTHATHAL & ORS. 
615 
appeal and dis.turb the concurrent findings of fact of the court A 
below which are the 

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