HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S.RAVI KUMAR SECOND APPEAL No.151 OF 2014 Dated 13-8-2014 Between:
Pudi Ramachandra rao.
..Appellant.
And:
Teegala Sanyasayyagupta and others.
..Respondents.
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S.RAVI KUMAR SECOND APPEAL No.151 OF 2014 ORDER:
This appeal is against concurrent judgment of Senior Civil Judge, Vizianagaram and I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Vizianagaram.
Appellant herein is defendant in the suit O.S.No.21 of 2005 which is filed for specific performance of agreement of sale dated 12-6-2000 and the trial court after considering the evidence of three witnesses and four documents on plaintiffs’ side and one witness on behalf of sole defendant who is examined D.W.1 held that plaintiff proved the sale agreement dated 12-6-2000 which is marked as Ex.A.1 and that he is ready and willing to perform his part of contract and directed the defendant to execute registered sale deed after receiving balance sale consideration within 60 days from the date of judgment and the appellate court i.e., I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Vizianagaram confirmed the said direction.
Now the contention of the appellant is that there is substantial question of law involved particularly under section 16 (c) of the Specific Relief Act (for short “the Act”) with regard to readiness and willingness.
The trial court and appellate court after considering the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 and the sale agreement besides the office copy of the legal notice held that plaintiffs proved not only execution of agreement of sale but also his readiness and willingness to perform his part of obligation under Ex.A.1.
According to Section 16 (c) of the Act, ‘who fails to aver and prove that he has performed or has always been ready and willing to perform the essential terms of the contract which are to be performed by him, other than terms the performance of which has been prevented or waived by the defendant’ is not entitled for specific performance of contract.
But here, both trial court and appellate court on a consideration of evidence found that there is pleading and also evidence in support of readiness and willingness. Therefore, the contention that there is substantial question of law particularly under Section 16 (c) of the Act cannot be countenanced.
On a perusal of the material, I am of the view that there is no substantial question of law for considering in a Second appeal and when both courts concurrently decided the issue on facts, this Second Appeal is not maintainable.
Accordingly, this Second Appeal is dismissed. As a sequel to the disposal of this appeal, the Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending, shall stand dismissed.
JUSTICE S.RAVI KUMAR Dated 13-8-2014.
Dvs.
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S.RAVI KUMAR Dvs SECOND APPEAL No.151 OF 2014 Dated 13-8-2014