Concurrent findings of fact on specific performance cannot be re-agitated in Second Appeal absent substantial questions of law.

The plaintiff (respondent) filed a suit for specific performance against the defendants (appellants) based on a registered agreement to sell dated 31.12.2013 for agricultural land in Dudhala

The total consideration was ₹3,00,000, of which ₹2,00,000 was paid as earnest money

The parties subsequently executed two registered agreements extending the time for the final sale deed

When the defendant failed to execute the deed, the plaintiff filed Civil Suit No. 39 of 2016. The Trial Court decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiff

The First Appellate Court dismissed the defendants' appeal on 09.03.2026, affirming the Trial Court's judgment

The defendants then moved the High Court in a Second Appeal, contending the property was ancestral and legal necessity was not proven

1. Whether the findings of fact by the lower courts were perverse or based on mutually contradictory conclusions

2. Whether the burden of proving legal necessity for the alienation of joint family property lies upon the plaintiff when such a plea was not raised in the initial pleadings

3. Whether the High Court can interfere with concurrent findings of fact under Section 100 of the CPC in the absence of a substantial question of law

The court primarily applied Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), which restricts Second Appeals to "substantial questions of law"

It relied on the principle that readiness and willingness are conditions precedent for specific performance

Regarding the scope of judicial review, the court applied the doctrine from Jaichand v. Sahnulal (2024), which establishes that High Courts cannot substitute their opinion for that of the First Appellate Court on facts unless the findings are contrary to law, based on inadmissible evidence, or per se unreasonable

It also referenced Navaneethammal v. Arjuna Shetty regarding the prohibition on re-appreciating evidence to reach an alternative factual view

The Court observed that the execution of the registered agreement to sell and subsequent extensions were admitted by Defendant No. 1 during cross-examination

The Court rejected the appellants' argument regarding the "ancestral" nature of the property and "legal necessity," noting that these claims were not pleaded in the original Written Statement; instead, the defendants had admitted the first defendant’s ownership

The Court found that the defendants failed to provide evidence of "coercion" or "force," noting the absence of any criminal complaints regarding the registered documents

Since the lower courts exercised their equitable discretion based on recorded evidence of the plaintiff's readiness and willingness, the High Court determined there was no "substantial question of law" to warrant interference

The court answered the issues by affirming that the defendants cannot raise new factual pleas (ancestral property) for the first time in a Second Appeal

The judgment and decree of the lower courts were upheld, and the connected Civil Application was disposed of