Indu Malhotra JUDGMENT
Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.
1. This appeal is directed against the final judgment and order dated 08.01.2008 passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur in F.A. No. 808 of 2000 whereby the Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the first appeal filed by the Appellant herein and affirmed the judgment and decree dated 31.08.2000 passed by the Additional District Judge, Harda in Civil Suit No. 19-A/97.
2. Few facts need mention infra for the disposal of this appeal.
3. The Appellant is the Plaintiff whereas the Respondents are the Defendants in the civil suit out of which this appeal arises.
4. The Appellant filed the civil suit against the Respondents claiming specific performance of the contract in relation to the suit land. The Respondents contested the suit.
5. By judgment/decree dated 31.8.2000, the Trial Court dismissed the suit. The Plaintiff felt aggrieved and filed first appeal before the High Court of M.P. at Jabalpur. By impugned judgment, the High Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the judgment and decree of the Trial Court, which has given rise to filing of this appeal by way of special leave by the Appellant(Plaintiff) before this Court.
6. Heard Mr. Navin Prakash, learned Counsel for the Appellant and Mr. Sumit Kumar Sharma, learned Counsel for the Respondents.
7. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record of the case, we find no merit in this appeal.
8. In our considered opinion, the concurrent findings of facts recorded by the two Courts below on all the material issues are binding on this Court. It is much more so when we are unable to notice any kind of perversity or illegality in the findings.
9. In other words, the findings apart from being concurrent are such that they are capable of being recorded on appreciation of evidence adduced by the parties. These findings are neither against the pleadings nor the evidence and nor any principle of law. These findings are also not shown to be perverse to the extent that no judicial person can ever record such findings.
10. It is a settled principle of law that the grant of relief of specific performance is a discretionary and equitable relief. The material questions, which are required to be gone into for grant of the relief of specific performance, are First, whether there exists a valid and concluded contract between the parties for sale/purchase of the suit property; Second, whether the Plaintiff has been ready and willing to perform his part of contract and whether he is still ready and willing to perform his part as mentioned in the contract; Third, whether the Plaintiff has, in fact, performed his part of the contract and, if so, how and to what extent and in what manner he has performed and whether such performance was in conformity with the terms of the contract; Fourth, whether it will be equitable to grant the relief of specific performance to the Plaintiff against the Defendant in relation to suit property or it will cause any kind of hardship to the Defendant and, if so, how and in what manner and the extent if such relief is eventually granted ........