Concurrent findings establishing readiness and willingness warrant specific performance absent perversity.

The respondent-plaintiff sought specific performance of a registered agreement to sell dated 13 June 2018 concerning 9 sataks of land under Touji No. 550 and Khatian No. 580, Mouja Bagbasha, North Tripura.

The appellant-defendant admitted execution of the agreement and receipt of ₹2,00,000, with the balance consideration of ₹1,20,000 payable within three years, at the time of execution and registration of the sale deed.

The respondent asserted that he repeatedly requested execution of the sale deed from June 2020 onwards and ultimately issued a legal notice dated 20 June 2022, received by the appellant on 29 June 2022.

The appellant alleged that the respondent failed to pay the balance consideration and claimed that he was compelled to sell another parcel of land to meet his daughter’s marriage expenses.

The Civil Judge decreed specific performance on 25 September 2023, directing payment of the balance consideration within 30 days and execution of the sale deed. The District Judge dismissed the appellant’s first appeal on 14 February 2025. The appellant thereafter filed the present second appeal.

Whether the suit for specific performance was barred by limitation, particularly when the agreement prescribed a three-year period for payment of the balance consideration and execution of the sale deed?

Whether the respondent-plaintiff proved continuous readiness and willingness to perform his part of the agreement by paying the balance consideration?

Whether the respondent was entitled to specific performance rather than monetary compensation?

Whether the agreement to sell was unenforceable under Section 23 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872?

Whether any substantial question of law arose warranting interference in the second appeal, including on the ground of hardship to the appellant?

The Court applied the principles governing suits for specific performance, including the requirement that the plaintiff establish readiness and willingness to perform his contractual obligations and the court’s power to grant specific performance where monetary compensation would not provide adequate relief.

It considered the applicable limitation principle that, where the agreement specifies a period for performance, limitation runs from the expiry of that period unless a different date is fixed.

The Court also considered Section 23 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, and found no illegality or object opposed to law, public policy, or morality in the agreement.

In a second appeal, interference is warranted only where a substantial question of law arises; concurrent factual findings supported by evidence cannot be disturbed merely because another view is possible.

The Court upheld the concurrent findings that the respondent had continuously sought execution of the sale deed and had offered to pay the balance consideration, whereas the appellant had not issued any notice demanding payment or otherwise demonstrated readiness to perform his own obligations.

The respondent’s suit, filed on 16 August 2022, was held to be within limitation because the contractual three-year period expired after execution of the agreement dated 13 June 2018.

The appellant’s plea of hardship was rejected because the alleged urgency, daughter’s marriage, and sale of another parcel of land were not adequately established through pleadings, evidence, or documentary proof; further, the appellant had agreed to a three-year period and never offered to return the ₹2,00,000 received from the respondent.

Since the trial court and first appellate court had reached findings based on the evidence and those findings were not perverse, no substantial question of law arose for consideration in the second appeal.

The respondent was required to pay the balance consideration of ₹1,20,000, following which the appellant was to execute and register the sale deed; in default, the respondent could approach the court for execution and registration.

The Court held that the suit was within limitation, the respondent had proved readiness and willingness, the agreement was not hit by Section 23 of the Contract Act, and no substantial question of law arose.

There was no order as to costs, and pending applications were disposed of.