Case Note & Summary
The appellant/defendant, Mohamed Haja Moideen, appealed against the judgment and decree dated 13.08.2018 passed by the District Court, Karaikal in O.S. No.15 of 2014, which decreed specific performance of an agreement for sale dated 17.12.2013. The respondent/plaintiff, Lakshminathan, claimed that the defendant agreed to sell a property for Rs.22,00,000/- and received an advance of Rs.20,00,000/-, with the balance to be paid within three months. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant failed to perform his part and filed a suit for specific performance or refund of advance with interest. The defendant denied the agreement, claiming that his signature was obtained on a blank stamp paper in connection with a loan from the plaintiff's brother, and that the document was fabricated. The trial court decreed the suit, leading to the appeal. The High Court examined the evidence, noting that the plaintiff did not produce the original agreement, did not examine any attesting witness, and failed to prove his readiness and willingness to perform. The court found the circumstances suspicious, including the low sale consideration compared to market value and the lack of independent witnesses. The court held that the plaintiff failed to prove the agreement and was not entitled to specific performance. The appeal was allowed, the trial court's decree was set aside, and the suit was dismissed. The court also directed the defendant to return the advance amount of Rs.20,00,000/- with interest at 6% per annum from the date of suit till realization, as an equitable relief.
Headnote
A) Specific Relief Act, 1963 - Section 16(c) - Readiness and Willingness - Plaintiff must prove continuous readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract - In the present case, plaintiff failed to produce evidence of financial capacity or deposit of balance consideration - Held that plaintiff not entitled to specific performance (Paras 10-12). B) Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 68 - Proof of Execution of Document - When execution is denied, plaintiff must prove due execution by examining attesting witnesses or other evidence - In this case, plaintiff did not examine any attesting witness and the document was unregistered - Held that the agreement was not proved (Paras 8-9). C) Contract Act, 1872 - Section 23 - Consideration - Agreement for sale for Rs.22,00,000/- with advance of Rs.20,00,000/- - Defendant alleged that the document was obtained by misusing blank stamp paper signed for a loan - Court found suspicious circumstances including non-production of original document and lack of independent witnesses - Held that the agreement was not supported by valid consideration (Paras 13-15).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the plaintiff is entitled to specific performance of the agreement for sale dated 17.12.2013, and whether the agreement is genuine and supported by consideration.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed. The judgment and decree dated 13.08.2018 in O.S. No.15 of 2014 on the file of the District Court, Karaikal are set aside. The suit is dismissed. However, the defendant is directed to return the advance amount of Rs.20,00,000/- with interest at 6% per annum from the date of suit till realization, within three months.
Law Points
- Specific performance
- Agreement for sale
- Readiness and willingness
- Unregistered document
- Suspicious circumstances
- Section 16(c) Specific Relief Act
- 1963
- Section 96 CPC
- Order XLI Rule 1 CPC
