Specific Relief — Specific performance — Readiness and willingness — Proof — Plaintiff proved readiness and willingness by: issuing notices for execution of sale deed, and attending Sub-Registrar’s office with balance consideration — Findings of First Appellate Court on readiness and willingness, based on evidence, upheld — Not perverse. (Paras 30, 38–40)

advocatemmmohan

Specific Relief — Specific performance — Readiness and willingness — Proof —

Plaintiff proved readiness and willingness by:

• issuing notices for execution of sale deed, and
• attending Sub-Registrar’s office with balance consideration —

Findings of First Appellate Court on readiness and willingness, based on evidence, upheld — Not perverse.

(Paras 30, 38–40)

---

Evidence — Non-appearance of plaintiff — Adverse inference — Rebuttal —

Non-examination of plaintiff gives rise to adverse inference — However, such presumption is rebuttable — Where Manager (PW-4) having personal knowledge deposed and corroborated transactions, adverse inference stands rebutted — Non-appearance not fatal.

(Paras 41–42)

---

Specific performance — Discretionary relief — Delay — Effect —

Mere passage of time between agreement and decree does not render grant of specific performance inequitable in absence of evidence showing escalation of price or resulting hardship.

(Para 44)

---

Transfer of Property Act, 1882 — Section 52 — Lis pendens — Effect of transfer —

Transfers made during pendency of litigation are not void but are subject to outcome of suit — However, where decree is ultimately upheld, such transfers cannot defeat rights of decree-holder — Subsequent transfers held ineffective.

(Paras 17, 45–46)

---

Specific performance — Subsequent sale — Effect —

Where decree for specific performance has been executed and sale deed obtained, subsequent transfers by defendant during pendency of litigation are liable to be ignored — Rights of decree-holder prevail.

(Paras 45–46)

---

CPC — Section 100 — Second appeal — Scope —

High Court cannot reappreciate evidence or interfere with findings of fact of First Appellate Court unless findings are perverse — Erroneous findings of fact alone do not give rise to substantial question of law.

(Paras 31–33)

---

Evidence — Payment — Authority to receive —

Cash payments made to person acting on behalf of company, supported by receipts and uncontroverted evidence, validly bind company — Absence of denial or rebuttal evidence strengthens such finding.

(Para 37)

---

RATIO DECIDENDI 

Findings of readiness and willingness, payment of consideration and extension of time recorded by the First Appellate Court, when based on evidence and not perverse, cannot be interfered with in second appeal; non-examination of the plaintiff is not fatal where evidence on record rebuts adverse inference, and transfers pendente lite cannot defeat rights flowing from a decree of specific performance.

---

RESULT

• Appeal dismissed
• Decree of specific performance confirmed
• Subsequent sale deeds by defendants held ineffective/non est

(Para 46)