In Brief
Annamalai purchased a residential property in Tamil Nadu under an agreement for sale dated 8 January 2010, paying over 90% of the agreed consideration. The sellers later demanded additional payment, which Annamalai paid and the sellers acknowledged on the back of the agreement. When the sellers later terminated the contract and sold the property to a related party, Annamalai sued for specific performance. The Trial Court and First Appellate Court favoured Annamalai, but the High Court reversed them, holding that specific performance could not be granted. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, holding that the High Court had exceeded its jurisdiction under Section 100 CPC by re-appreciating factual evidence rather than deciding substantial questions of law. The Court emphasised that concurrent findings of fact cannot be disturbed unless perverse or unsupported by record, and that the sellers had waived their right to terminate by accepting additional payment. Specific performance was therefore decreed.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.