Case Note & Summary
The case involves a second appeal arising from a suit for specific performance of an agreement for sale. The appellant (original defendant) executed an agreement for sale dated 2nd June 1975 in favour of the respondent No.1 (original plaintiff) for a suit land. The agreement contained a condition that the appellant would obtain permission to sell from the Sub Divisional Officer, and the sale deed was to be executed within two months from obtaining such permission. The respondent No.1 claimed that possession was delivered under the agreement. The appellant denied the agreement and possession. The trial court decreed the suit for specific performance, which was affirmed by the first appellate court. The appellant filed this second appeal. The substantial question of law framed was whether the courts below erred in affirming the genuineness and enforceability of the agreement. The High Court examined the evidence and found that the respondent No.1 failed to prove that the appellant obtained the required permission, which was a condition precedent. There were also contradictions in the evidence regarding payment of consideration and possession. The High Court held that the courts below erred in their appreciation of evidence and allowed the appeal, setting aside the judgments and decrees of the courts below and dismissing the suit.
Headnote
A) Contract Law - Agreement for Sale - Genuineness and Enforceability - Specific Relief Act, 1963, Section 16(c) - The court examined whether the agreement for sale dated 2nd June 1975 was genuine and enforceable, considering the failure to obtain permission from the Sub Divisional Officer as required and contradictions in evidence. Held that the courts below erred in upholding the agreement without properly appreciating the evidence and the condition precedent. (Paras 1-10) B) Evidence Act - Burden of Proof - Onus to Prove Genuineness - Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Section 101 - The plaintiff had the burden to prove the genuineness of the agreement. The court found that the plaintiff failed to discharge this burden due to material contradictions and non-compliance with the condition to obtain permission. (Paras 5-8)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the courts below erred in affirming the genuineness and enforceability of the agreement for sale set up by the Respondent in the light of the facts and circumstances of the case.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the second appeal, set aside the judgments and decrees of the courts below, and dismissed the suit for specific performance.
Law Points
- Agreement for sale
- Specific performance
- Burden of proof
- Genuineness of document
- Permission to sell
- Contradictions in evidence
