Specific performance upheld where transfer restrictions were conditional, readiness and willingness were proved, and market rise could not defeat relief.

Specific performance of an agreement to sell was supported where the agreement was proved, the plaintiff was found ready and willing to perform, and the challenge to validity failed on evidence. The cooperative society charge was treated as a conditional restriction rather than an absolute bar, since transfer could proceed after borrowings were cleared, and the resettlement framework allowed transfer with prior permission of the competent authority. The appellants produced no evidence of any subsisting legal impediment or of the extent of the charge, and increased market value did not make enforcement inequitable. The decree for specific performance was therefore maintained, subject to the modified consideration accepted by the respondent.

---

---

Issues: Whether the plaintiff was entitled to specific performance of the agreement to sell despite the restrictions arising from the cooperative society charge and the requirement of prior governmental permission, and whether the Court should interfere with the concurrent findings granting that relief.

Analysis: The findings that the agreement was proved, that the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform her part, and that the appellants had failed to substantiate the plea of invalidity were concurrent findings based on evidence. The restriction under the cooperative law was conditional and did not create an absolute bar to transfer once the borrowings were cleared, and the resettlement law permitted transfer with prior permission of the competent authority. The appellants led no evidence to show the extent of any subsisting charge or to establish a legal impediment. The discretion under the Specific Relief Act was properly exercised because the case did not fall within any exception making specific performance inequitable, and the appellants could not rely on increased market value to defeat the decree.

Conclusion: The relief of specific performance was rightly granted, and there was no ground to interfere with the decree, as modified by the enhanced consideration accepted by the respondent.

---