The court held that the plaintiff must demonstrate readiness and willingness to perform the contract, and concurrent findings by lower courts are not to be disturbed without a substantial question of law.

JUDGMENT :

K.MURALI SHANKAR, J.

The Second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree, dated 13.08.2025 made in A.S.No.94 of 2023 on the file of the Additional District Court, (Fast Tract Court) Palani, confirming the judgment and decree, dated 19.07.2023 made in O.S.No.519 of 2014 on the file of the Principal Sub Court, Palani.

2. The appellant is the plaintiff. He filed a suit in O.S.No.519 of 2014, on the file of the Principal Sub Court, Palani, claiming the relief of specific performance of the sale agreement, dated 02.01.2009 and in alternative, for refund of the advance amount of Rs.7,97,000/- with interest at 12 % p.a., and costs.

3.The defendants 3 to 6 filed their written statement and contested the suit. The learned Principal Sub Judge, Palani, after framing necessary issues and after full trial, passed a judgment and decree, dated 19.07.2023, dismissing the suit for the relief of specific performance and granted the alternative relief for refund of the advance amount, directing the defendants to pay jointly or severally the advance amount of Rs.7,97,000/- with interest at the rate of 9% p.a from the date of suit sale agreement till the date of decree and thereafter, at the rate of 6% p.a till the date of realization and costs within a period of two months. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree of the trial Court, refusing to grant the specific performance relief, the plaintiff filed an appeal in A.S.No.94 of 2023 and the learned Additional District Judge, Palani, upon considering the materials available on record and on hearing the arguments of both the sides, passed the impugned judgment, dated 13.08.2025, dismissing the appeal and thereby confirming the judgment and decree of the trial Court. Challenging the dismissal of the appeal, the plaintiff has filed the present second appeal.

4. At the outset, it is necessary to refer the mandate of Hon'ble Supreme Court for High Courts in deciding the second appeal under Section 100 of the CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE , given in the case of Gurnam Singh (dead) by LRs., and others Vs. Lehna Singh (dead) by LRs., reported in AIR 2019 SC 1441 , that the jurisdiction of the High Court in an appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure is strictly confined to the case involving substantial question of law and the relevant passage is extracted hereunder:

“18. Before parting with the present judgment, we remind the High Courts that the jurisdiction of the High Court, in an appeal under Section 100 of the CPC, is strictly confined to the case involving substantial question of law and while deciding the second appeal under Section 100 of the CPC, it is not permissible for the High Court to re-appreciate the evidence on record and interfere with the findings recorded by the Courts below and/or the First Appellate Court and if the First Appellate Court has exercised its discretion in a judicial manner, its decision cannot be recorded as suffering from an error either of law or of procedure requiring interference in Second Appeal. We have noticed and even as repeatedly observed by this Court and even in the case of Narayanan Rajendran v. Lekshmy Sarojini, (2009) 5 SCC 264, despite the catena of decisions of this Court and even the mandate under Section 100 of the CPC, the High Courts under Section 100 CPC are disturbing the concurrent findings of facts and/or even the findings recorded by the First Appellate Court, either without formulating the substanti