Legal Analysis: A. Shahul Hameed vs. N. Malligarjuna and Others

Citation: 2026 INSC 573
Court: Supreme Court of India
Bench: Division Bench comprising Justice Sanjay Karol (and another)
Judgment Author: Justice Sanjay Karol
Date of Decision: May 27, 2026
Nature of Judgment: Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) No. 32390 of 2025 against the judgment of the Madras High Court in a second appeal under Section 100 CPC, concerning specific performance of an agreement to sell.

Synopsis of the Judgment
The plaintiff (purchaser) entered into a sale agreement dated 19.03.2010 for purchase of property for Rs.9,30,000/-, paying Rs.9,00,000/- as earnest money. The defendants (vendors) failed to execute the sale deed within the stipulated four months. The plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance. The Trial Court decreed the suit. The First Appellate Court concurred that the agreement was genuine but denied specific performance on the ground that the plaintiff failed to prove readiness and willingness under Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, instead directing refund of the advance with 6% interest. The High Court, in second appeal, went further and held that the agreement was never intended for sale but was only a security document, and affirmed denial of specific performance but enhanced interest to 12% on the refund amount. The Supreme Court allowed the plaintiff's appeal, holding that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction under Section 100 CPC by interfering with concurrent findings of fact on the genuineness of the agreement without showing perversity. The Court further held that the plaintiff had sufficiently established continuous readiness and willingness, as he had paid 93% of the consideration and approached the defendants within the stipulated period. The Supreme Court restored the Trial Court's decree for specific performance.

1. Basic Information of the Judgment

• Case Title: A. Shahul Hameed vs. N. Malligarjuna and Others

• Civil Appeal No.: Arising out of SLP (C) No. 32390 of 2025 (Leave granted)

• Bench: Justice Sanjay Karol (Division Bench)

• Date of Decision: May 27, 2026

• Citation: 2026 INSC 573

• Appeal From: Judgment and decree dated 25.06.2025 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras in S.A. No. 905 of 2017.

2. Legal Framework

Laws and Provisions Involved:

• Specific Relief Act, 1963 (SPA 1963): Section 16(c) (plaintiff must aver and prove readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract).

• Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC): Section 100 (second appeal only on substantial question of law; limitation on interference with concurrent findings of fact).

• Indian Evidence Act, 1872: Section 114 (adverse inference from failure to reply to legal notice).

• Transfer of Property Act, 1882: Sections 54 (sale), 55 (rights and liabilities of buyer and seller).

Key Precedents Cited and Applied:

• Kondiba Dagadu Kadam v. Savitribai Sopan Gujar (1999) – If from given set of circumstances two inferences are possible, the one drawn by the lower appellate court is binding on the High Court in second appeal.

• Karnataka Board of Wakf v. Anjuman-E-Ismail Madris-Un-Niswan (1999) – High Court cannot interfere with pure findings of fact unless perverse or based on no evidence.

• C. Doddanarayana Reddy v. C. Jayarama Reddy (2020) – Reappreciation of evidence to replace findings of lower courts is impermissible in second appeal.

• State of Rajasthan v. Shiv Dayal (2019) – Concurrent findings can be interfered with only if recorded dehors the pleadings, based on no evidence, or based on misreading of material evidence.

• Ramachandra Reddy v. Ramulu Ammal (2023) – Jurisdiction under Section 100 CPC is limited; in

... Upgrade to a Premium Plan to view the full judgment.