Specific performance can be replaced by compensation when execution becomes impossible without the plaintiff's fault.

Readiness and willingness to perform a reconveyance contract were upheld on the basis of pre-suit notices and surrounding circumstances, and the Court recognised that a second appellate court may correct concurrent findings where material evidence was ignored or the factual approach was erroneous. It further held that, under Section 21 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, compensation may be awarded in substitution for specific performance when the contract becomes incapable of execution without fault of the plaintiff. The property's acquisition during litigation did not bar relief, and the decree was moulded into monetary compensation linked to the acquisition award, subject to deduction for the defendant's services and expenses.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform the contract for reconveyance and whether the High Court could interfere with concurrent findings in second appeal; (ii) whether the decree for specific performance could be substituted by a decree for compensation when the suit property was acquired during the pendency of the proceedings.

Issue (i): Whether the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform the contract for reconveyance and whether the High Court could interfere with concurrent findings in second appeal

Analysis: The notices issued by the plaintiff before the suit, together with the surrounding circumstances, supported the finding that he had the capacity and intention to perform his part of the bargain. The Court also held that a second appellate court is not barred from correcting findings of fact where relevant evidence has been ignored or the factual approach is erroneous. The notices could be treated as part of the plaint and were entitled to the presumption of service.

Conclusion: The finding that the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform the contract was upheld, and no error was found in the High Court's interference.

Issue (ii): Whether the decree for specific performance could be substituted by a decree for compensation when the suit property was acquired during the pendency of the proceedings

Analysis: Section 21 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 permits compensation in substitution of specific performance, and the Explanation makes clear that impossibility of specific performance does not by itself exclude relief under that section. The Court distinguished the English rule and the earlier authorities relied upon, holding that Indian law allows compensation where the contract becomes incapable of specific performance without fault on the plaintiff's part. The measure of compensation was linked to the acquisition compensation, with appropriate deduction for the defendant's services, time and expenditure.

Conclusion: The decree was lawfully converted into one for compensation in lieu of specific performance, with the amount to be worked out from the acquisition compensation and the stated deduction.

Final Conclusion: The decree for specific performance was not maintained as such, but the plaintiff's substantive entitlement was preserved by substituting monetary compensation based on the acquisition award, while affirming the plaintiff's readiness and the defendant's breach.

Ratio Decidendi: Where specific performance becomes incapable of execution without fault of the plaintiff, Indian law under Section 21 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 permits substitution of compensation in lieu of specific performance, and the court may mould relief accordingly.

---