In Brief
A buyer agreed to purchase 3 acres of land for ₹6.6 lakh from a seller who later refused to execute the sale deed. The buyer sued for specific performance; both the trial court and first appellate court found he was ready and willing to perform the contract and granted partial relief. The High Court reversed these concurrent findings in a second appeal under Section 100 CPC without providing the buyer adequate hearing on newly framed questions of law and without examining the trial court record. The Supreme Court held that the High Court violated procedural requirements: substantial questions must be framed at admission and parties given adequate time to address them; concurrent findings cannot be reversed without identifying specific perversity or exceptional circumstances and only after perusing the trial record. The Court set aside the High Court's judgment and remanded the case for fresh consideration.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.