ADVOCATEMMMOHAN: Specific Relief – Suit for specific performance – Burden of proof Where execution of agreement of sale and passing of advance consideration are specifically denied, the burden lies on the plaintiff to prove the genuineness of the agreement and payment of consideration. (Paras 12–13) Agreement of sale – Suspicious circumstances – Discrepant signatures Material discrepancies in signatures and execution of an agreement of sale, coupled with inconsistent evidence of attestors and scribe, constitute valid grounds for courts to disbelieve the document. (Paras 13–16) Evidence – Attestors and scribe – Credibility Where attestor and scribe depose that they signed on a particular page of the document but their signatures appear on a different page, such inconsistency affects the credibility of execution of the document. (Paras 14

Friday, January 9, 2026

Specific Relief – Suit for specific performance – Burden of proof Where execution of agreement of sale and passing of advance consideration are specifically denied, the burden lies on the plaintiff to prove the genuineness of the agreement and payment of consideration. (Paras 12–13) Agreement of sale – Suspicious circumstances – Discrepant signatures Material discrepancies in signatures and execution of an agreement of sale, coupled with inconsistent evidence of attestors and scribe, constitute valid grounds for courts to disbelieve the document. (Paras 13–16) Evidence – Attestors and scribe – Credibility Where attestor and scribe depose that they signed on a particular page of the document but their signatures appear on a different page, such inconsistency affects the credibility of execution of the document. (Paras 14–15)

advocatemmmohan

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Section 100

Second Appeal – Scope – Substantial question of law

Existence of a substantial question of law is a sine qua non for exercise of jurisdiction under Section 100 CPC. High Court cannot re-appreciate evidence or interfere with concurrent findings of fact unless such findings are perverse, based on inadmissible evidence, or recorded by ignoring material evidence.
(Paras 17–20)

Specific Relief – Suit for specific performance – Burden of proof

Where execution of agreement of sale and passing of advance consideration are specifically denied, the burden lies on the plaintiff to prove the genuineness of the agreement and payment of consideration.
(Paras 12–13)

Agreement of sale – Suspicious circumstances – Discrepant signatures

Material discrepancies in signatures and execution of an agreement of sale, coupled with inconsistent evidence of attestors and scribe, constitute valid grounds for courts to disbelieve the document.
(Paras 13–16)

Evidence – Attestors and scribe – Credibility

Where attestor and scribe depose that they signed on a particular page of the document but their signatures appear on a different page, such inconsistency affects the credibility of execution of the document.
(Paras 14–15)

Concurrent findings of fact – Finality

Concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Trial Court and confirmed by the First Appellate Court, based on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, are binding and not open to interference in second appeal.
(Paras 16–20)

Second Appeal – Dismissal at admission stage

When no substantial question of law arises for consideration, second appeal is liable to be dismissed at the admission stage itself.
(Paras 20–21)

ANALYSIS (ISSUE-WISE)

1. Nature of the litigation

The plaintiff filed O.S. No.97 of 2017 seeking specific performance of an agreement of sale dated 21.04.2013 or, in the alternative, refund of advance amount with interest. The Trial Court dismissed the suit, and the dismissal was confirmed in first appeal. The plaintiff approached the High Court under Section 100 CPC.
(Paras 1–7)

2. Core defence and burden of proof

The defendant categorically denied execution of the agreement of sale and receipt of advance consideration, asserting that signed blank papers obtained in a prior loan transaction were misused. In such circumstances, the High Court held that the burden squarely lay on the plaintiff to prove execution and payment.
(Paras 5, 12)

3. Appreciation of Ex.A1 agreement of sale

Both courts below found serious discrepancies in Ex.A1:

Different forms of the defendant’s signature on two pages;
Thumb impression appearing only on one page;
Attestor and scribe claiming to have signed on the stamp paper, though their signatures appeared on the green paper.
These inconsistencies were held to be unexplained and fatal to the plaintiff’s case.
(Paras 13–16)

4. Concurrent findings and Section 100 CPC

The High Court reiterated settled principles governing Section 100 CPC, relying on Supreme Court precedents, holding that:

Findings of fact cannot be reopened;
Re-appreciation of evidence is impermissible;
Interference is justified only if findings are perverse or contrary to settled law.
No such infirmity was found.
(Paras 17–20)

5. Conclusion

Since the findings of the courts below were based on proper appreciation of evidence and no substantial question of law arose, the second appeal was dismissed at the admission stage without costs.
(Paras 20–21)

RATIO DECIDENDI

In a suit for specific performance, when execution of the agreement of sale and payment of advance consideration are denied, the burden of proof lies entirely on the plaintiff to establish the genuineness of the agreement and the transaction.
Material discrepancies in execution, signatures, and supporting testimony of attestors and scribe justify rejection of an agreement of sale as not proved.
Concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Trial Court and First Appellate Court, based on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, cannot be interfered with in second appeal unless shown to be perverse or contrary to law.
In the absence of a substantial question of law, a second appeal under Section 100 CPC is liable to be dismissed at the admission stage.

ADVOCATEMMMOHAN