Post-2018 amendment of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, specific performance is a mandatory rule rather than a discretionary relief. Additionally, a trial court cannot record findings on readiness and willingness without first framing a specific issue on that point.

DEEPAK GUPTA, J. (ORAL)

The present Regular Second Appeal has been preferred by the defendant-appellant assailing the judgment & decree dated 29.10.2025 passed by the learned Addi4onal District Judge, Palwal, whereby the appeal filed by the plain4ff-respondent was allowed, the judgment & decree dated 09.02.2023 passed by the learned trial Court were set aside, and the suit for specific performance of agreement to sell dated 19.02.2021 was decreed.

2. Briefly stated, the plain4ff ins4tuted a suit for possession by way of specific performance of agreement to sell dated 19.02.2021 alleging that the defendant, being owner to the extent of 1/4th share measuring 7 kanal 4 marla out of the suit land, agreed to sell the same for a total sale considera4on of ₹11,70,000/-. An amount of ₹1,00,000/- was allegedly paid as earnest money and the target date for execu4on and registra4on of the sale deed was fixed as 19.05.2021. The plain4ff pleaded that he remained present before the office of Sub Registrar, Hathin on the s4pulated date along with balance sale considera4on and expenses, but the defendant failed to appear. Legal no4ce dated 01.06.2021 was thereaCer issued calling upon the defendant to perform his part of the contract, but to no avail. Consequently, the suit came to be filed.

3. The defendant contested the suit by denying execu4on of the agreement to sell altogether. His defence was that he had merely borrowed a sum of ₹1,00,000/- from the plain4ff at the 4me of marriage of his daughter and had put his thumb impressions on blank papers as security, which were subsequently misused by the plain4ff for fabrica4ng the agreement and receipt in ques4on.

4. ACer framing issues and taking evidence led by the par4es, the learned trial Court, on apprecia4on of evidence, declined the relief of specific performance and instead granted only a money decree. However, in appeal, the learned first Appellate Court reversed the findings of the trial Court and decreed the suit for specific performance aCer holding that the agreement to sell stood duly proved, the defence raised by the defendant was unreliable and the plain4ff had established his readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract.

5. Assailing the above reversal, learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the first Appellate Court erred in reversing the well reasoned findings recorded by the trial Court. It is contended that the plain4ff failed to establish his con4nuous readiness and willingness as mandated under Sec4on 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. It is further argued that mere presence before the Sub Registrar through an affidavit was insufficient proof of financial capacity. Learned counsel would further submit that the agreement itself was a fabricated document prepared on blank papers obtained from the defendant in connec4on with a loan transac4on.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the paper-book.

7. At the outset, it deserves to be no4ced that the jurisdic4on of this Court under Sec4on 100 CPC is confined only to examina4on of substan4al ques4ons of law. Concurrent or even reversed findings of fact recorded by the Courts below cannot be interfered with unless s