VEERAYEE AMMAL versus SEENI AMMAL

Citation: [2001] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 467 · Decided: 19-10-2001 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.P. SETHI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

VEERAYEE AMMAL 
v. 
SEENIAMMAL 
OCTOBER 19, 2001 
[R.P. SETHI AND SHIVARAJ V. PATIL, JJ.] 
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 : Section JOO. 
Second Appeal-Power of High Court-Condition precedent to entertain 
second appeal-Substantial question of law-What is. 
A 
B 
c 
Suit for specific performance-_Decree by trial court-Affirmed by Ap-
pellate Court-Both Courts holding that time is not the essence of contract-
Finding that plaintiff was always ready and willing to pe1fom1 her part of act-
Finding by both courts that action was initiated by plaintiff within reasonable 
time-Second appeal-Question framed by High Court-Whether plaintiff will-· D 
ing to perform her part of contract-Held, not a substantial question of law-
Finding of.fact disturbed by High Court in second appeal held not justified. 
Contract-Time not essence of contract-Plaintiff should approach the 
court within reasonable time. 
Words and Phrases: 
'Reasonable'-Meaning o.f. 
The appellant-plaintiff entered into an agreement to sell, on 16.3.1980 
E 
with respondent-defendant. The parties had agreed to complete the sale by 
F 
15.6.1980 despite the fact that time was not the essence of contract. On 
failure of respondent-defendant to comply with conditions of agreement 
and to execute the sale deed the appellant-plaintiff filed a suit for specific 
performance. The trial court decreed the suit and the first appeal filed by 
respondent-defendant was dismissed. The trial court as well as the First 
Appellate Court held that time was not the essence of contract and that the 
G 
appellant-plaintiff did not abandon the contrac~ voluntarily and was 
always ready and willing to perform her part of the contract. On the basis 
of the evidence on record both these courts also found that legal action was 
initiated by the appellant-plaintiff within a reasonable time. In second 
appeal the High Court set aside the concurrent findings of facts of courts 
H 
467 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
468 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2001) SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 
below. The substantial question of law framed by it viz. whether in the 
circumstances of the case the plaintiff had established that she has been 
ready and willing to perform her part of the contract was answered in the 
negative. Hence this appeal. 
Allowing the appeal and setting aside the impugned judgment of the 
High Court, the Court 
HELD : 1. The impugned judgment being against the settled provi· 
sions of law is not sustainable. Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 
1908 was amended in 1976 making it obligatory upon the High Court to 
entertain the second appeal only if it was satisfied that the case involved a 
substantial question of law. The object of amendment was to minimise the 
litigation, to give the litigant fair trial in accordance with the accepted 
principles of c:!tural justice, to expedite the. disposal of civil suits and 
proceedings so that justice is not delayed, to avoid complicated procedure, 
to ensure fair deal to the poor sections of the community and restrict the 
second appeals only on such questions which are certified by the courts to 
be substantial question of.. law. Despite amendment, the provisions of 
Section 100 of the Code have been liberally construed and generously 
applied by some judges of the High Courts with the result that objective 
intended to be achieved by the amendment of Section 100 appears to 
have been frustrated. Even before the amendment of Section 100 of the 
Code, the concurrent finding of fact could not be disturbed in the second 
appeal. [471-D·G] 
Paras Nath Thakurv. Smt. Mohani Dasi (Deceased) & Ors., AIR (1959) 
p 
SC 1204; Sri Sinha Ramanuja Jeer Swamigal v. Sri Ranga Ramanuja Jeer 
alias Emberumimer Jeer & Ors., Am (1961) SC 1720; V. RamachandraAyyer 
& Am: v. Ramalingani Chettiar & Am:, AIR (1963) SC 302 and Madamanchi 
Ramappa '& Anr. v. Muthaluru Bojjappa, AiR (1963) SC 1633, referred to. 
2. The question of law formulated as substantial question of law in 
G 
the instant case cannot, in any way, be termed to be a question oflaw much 
less as substantial question of law. The question formulated in fact was a 
question of fact. It .was concurrently held in favour of the appellant. 
plaintiff. Therefore, the High Court was not justified to disturb the same 
by subst~tuting its own finding for the findings of the courts below, arrived 
H 
at on appreciation of evidence. [473-E] ' 
r I
\ 
VEERAYEE AMMAL v. SEENI AMMAL [SETHI; J.] 
469 
Sir Chunilal v. Mehta & Sons Ltd. v. 

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