Specific performance upheld where execution of the agreement and readiness to perform were concurrently proved, with no hardship shown.

Concurrent findings that an agreement to sell was duly executed and earnest money was paid, supported by the scribe and attesting witnesses, were treated as reliable and were not reopened in second appeal. The defence version failed for want of convincing evidence, and the alleged fiduciary relationship was not proved so as to weaken the claim for specific performance. The Court also noted that no pleaded hardship under Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act was shown to justify refusal of discretionary relief. The decree for specific performance was therefore upheld and the concurrent decrees remained undisturbed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the decree for specific performance based on the agreement to sell was liable to be interfered with in second appeal.

Analysis: The agreement to sell and payment of earnest money were concurrently proved by the courts below on the basis of the scribe and attesting witnesses, whose testimony was found trustworthy. The defence version was not supported by convincing evidence, and the plea of fiduciary relationship was not established so as to discredit the plaintiff's claim. In second appeal, the Court declined to reappreciate the evidence and noted that no pleaded hardship under Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act was shown to deny the discretionary relief of specific performance.

Conclusion: The decree for specific performance was upheld and no interference was called for; the finding was against the appellants and in favour of the respondent.

Final Conclusion: The concurrent decrees granting specific performance stood affirmed, and the second appeal failed.

Ratio Decidendi: Concurrent findings proving execution of an agreement to sell and readiness to perform will not be disturbed in second appeal in the absence of a substantial error of law or pleaded hardship justifying refusal of specific performance.

---