KARTURI PRASAD RAO vs KARTURI SURYA KANTHAMMA

The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in interfering with the concurrent findings of fact by the trial court and the lower appellate court regarding the readiness and willingness of the appellant to perform his part of the contract under the Specific Relief Act, 1963. The Court emphasized that the respondent failed to pay the balance amount or execute the sale deed, thus upholding the trial court's decree for rescission of the contract and restoration of possession. The Court reinstated the trial court's order, confirming the appellant's entitlement to the relief sought under Section 28 of the Specific Relief Act.