SPECIFIC RELIEF ACT, 1963 – Ss. 10, 16 – Specific performance – agreement of sale – burden to prove execution and passing of consideration – suspicious document – concurrent rejection – no interference in Second Appeal.
Plaintiff sought specific performance of an agreement of sale dated 21-04-2013 alleging payment of Rs.3,00,000/- out of total consideration of Rs.3,25,000/-. Defendant denied execution and pleaded misuse of signed blank instruments obtained in earlier loan transaction. Both Trial Court and First Appellate Court, having scrutinised Ex.A1 and oral evidence, found the agreement not proved and dismissed the suit. High Court held that the burden lay squarely on the plaintiff to establish execution and passing of consideration, which was not discharged, and refused to interfere with the concurrent findings.
(Paras 3–7, 12–16, 20–21)-
EVIDENCE – Agreement of sale written on two sheets – inconsistent signatures – attestor and scribe not supporting document structure – “unclean hands” – Ex.A1 disbelieved.
Ex.A1 consisted of (i) a Rs.50/- non-judicial stamp paper and (ii) a green “conquest” paper. On the stamp paper, defendant’s signature appeared as “K. Srinivas Rao”; on the second sheet as “Kadagala Srinivasa Rao” along with thumb impression. Plaintiff offered no explanation for the discrepancy. PW2 (attestor) claimed to have signed on stamp paper but his signature appeared only on the second sheet; PW3 (scribe) similarly claimed to have signed on the stamp paper, but his signature was present only on the second sheet. Both Courts treated these inconsistencies, coupled with the defendant’s plea of misuse of signed papers, as fatal to the genuineness of Ex.A1, held that plaintiff had approached the Court with “unclean hands,” and rejected the document. High Court endorsed this approach.
(Paras 6, 12–16) -
NEGOTIABLE / CREDIT TRANSACTIONS – Financier–borrower dispute – allegation of misuse of signed blank cheques, promissory notes, and stamp papers – criminal complaint and parallel money suit – impact on specific performance claim.
Defendant’s case was that he had borrowed Rs.50,000/- from plaintiff (a financier) in 2011 and, at that time, plaintiff obtained signed blank cheque, blank promissory notes, signed blank stamp papers and green sheets from him and his wife; despite paying about Rs.2,50,000/-, documents were not returned. Defendant lodged a police complaint, which led to registration of Crime No.239/2015, and plaintiff also caused filing of O.S. No.621/2015 at Visakhapatnam on a promissory note. These circumstances were noticed by the Courts below as consistent with the defence that Ex.A1 was a manipulated document arising out of prior money-lending dealings rather than a genuine agreement of sale.
(Paras 5(a)–(c), 6, 16) -
CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, 1908 – S. 100 – Second Appeal – concurrent findings on genuineness of agreement and conduct of plaintiff – scope of interference – reiteration of Chandrabhan and Jaichand.
High Court reiterated that in Second Appeal it cannot re-appreciate evidence or substitute its own view where Courts below have judicially exercised discretion and recorded concurrent findings on facts. Referring to Chandrabhan v. Saraswati (2022) 20 SCC 199 and Jaichand (D) through LRs v. Sahnulal 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3864, it restated that interference is warranted only where (i) material evidence is ignored or there is “no evidence,” (ii) wrong inferences are drawn by erroneous application of law, or (iii) burden of proof is wrongly cast, and only where a substantial question of law arises. On the facts, findings on Ex.A1, plaintiff’s readiness and willingness, and credibility of his case were all pure questions of fact properly dealt with by both Courts; no substantial question of law arose.
(Paras 11, 17–19, 20–21) -
SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE – Readiness and willingness – cannot arise when foundational document itself is disbelieved.
Appellant/plaintiff argued that he was always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract and that Courts below failed to consider this aspect. High Court held that once Ex.A1 itself was found not genuine and execution / consideration not proved, the question of readiness and willingness became academic; in absence of a proved, valid contract, no decree for specific performance could be passed.
(Paras 9–12, 16, 20–21) -
SECOND APPEAL – Dismissal at admission stage – concurrent findings supported by evidence – no perversity – S.A. dismissed without costs.
On a holistic reading of the record, the High Court concluded that both Trial Court and First Appellate Court had correctly evaluated Ex.A1 and the witnesses, drawn reasonable conclusions, and applied the correct legal principles on burden and scope under S.100 CPC. As no substantial question of law arose, the Second Appeal was dismissed at admission, without costs; all pending miscellaneous petitions stood closed.
(Paras 20–21)
II. ANALYSIS OF FACTS AND LAW
-
Facts and pleadings (Paras 3–5):
-
Plaintiff claimed: defendant purchased suit property under sale deed dated 26-02-2013; subsequently agreed to sell it to plaintiff for Rs.3,25,000/-.
-
Ex.A1 agreement of sale dated 21-04-2013 allegedly executed at Visakhapatnam; plaintiff claimed to have paid Rs.3,00,000/- as advance; 12 months fixed for execution of sale deed.
-
Legal notice dated 28-09-2015 returned; suit filed seeking specific performance or, in the alternative, refund.
-
Defendant denied Ex.A1, denied receipt of Rs.3,00,000/-, and set up the financier–borrower story with misuse of signed blank instruments, police complaint and separate promissory-note suit.
-
-
Evidence and trial / appeal findings (Paras 6–7, 12–16):
-
Plaintiff examined himself (P.W.1), attestor (P.W.2) and scribe (P.W.3); Exs.A1–A3 marked.
-
Defendant examined as D.W.1; Exs.B1–B4 marked.
-
Key discrepancies highlighted by both Courts:
-
Two-sheet structure of Ex.A1 (stamp paper + green paper).
-
Different forms of defendant’s signature on the two sheets.
-
Attestor and scribe each claimed to have signed on the stamp paper but, in fact, their signatures appeared only on the second sheet.
-
-
Trial Court held Ex.A1 not proved, found plaintiff had come with unclean hands, and dismissed the suit; First Appellate Court, as final fact-finding Court, re-considered the material and affirmed.
-
-
Substantial questions and scope under S.100 CPC (Paras 11–18):
-
High Court framed two substantial questions: (1) whether plaintiff proved genuineness of Ex.A1; (2) whether judgments are perverse.
-
It emphasised that burden to prove Ex.A1 lay on plaintiff, especially in the face of a detailed defence about manipulation of signed papers.
-
After reciting and applying the principles from Chandrabhan and Jaichand on the limited scope of S.100 CPC, the Court concluded that the case raised no substantial question of law.
-
-
Conclusion (Paras 20–21):
-
Findings that Ex.A1 was not genuine and that plaintiff failed to prove execution and consideration are pure findings of fact supported by the evidence discussed.
-
There was no perversity, misapplication of law, or ignoring of material evidence.
-
Second Appeal was dismissed at the admission stage; no order as to costs; all pending miscellaneous petitions closed.
-
No comments:
Post a Comment