1. Suit for specific performance of an agreement of sale for a house — dispute over genuineness, validity, and consideration of the agreement. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 )
Back
Next 
1962 Supreme(SC) 271
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K.C.Das Gupta : P.B.Gajendragadkar : Raghubar Dayal
Ishwari Prasad Misra
Versus
Mohammad Isa
Case No. : 630 of 1960
Date of Decision : 8/27/62
Advocates Appeared: Agrawal S.C. : Daphtary C.K. : Dapthary C.K. : Garg R.K. : Jha L.K. : Jha Subodh Kumar : Prasad R.C. : Ramamurthi M.K. : Sastri A.V.Viswanatha : Singh D.P.
Advocates:
A.V.VISHWANATHA SASTRI, C.K.DAFTARY, D.P.Singh, L.K.JHA, M.K.RAMAMURTHY, R.C.Prasad, R.K.GARG, S.C.AGRAWAL, SUBODH JHA
A.V.VISHWANATHA SASTRI, C.K.DAFTARY, D.P.Singh, L.K.JHA, M.K.RAMAMURTHY, R.C.Prasad, R.K.GARG, S.C.AGRAWAL, SUBODH JHA
Findings of fact by a trial court should not be reversed unless perverse. Appellate courts must maintain judicial poise and avoid using intemperate language or imputing corrupt motives to trial judges when different interpretations of evidence are possible.
Headnote:(A) Specific Performance of Contract - Agreement of sale - Genuineness and validity of the agreement - Appreciation of evidence - Where the evidence of the scribe, the lawyer who prepared the draft, and disinterested attesting witnesses is reliable, and the defendant's alternative theory is found to be improbable and inconsistent with their conduct, the agreement must be held as genuine, valid, and supported by consideration. (Paras 13, 18, 25)
(B) Appellate Jurisdiction - Scope of interference with findings of fact - A court of appeal should not reverse findings of fact unless they are perverse or based on no evidence - While different views may be possible on the same evidence, this does not justify the use of intemperate language or imputations of corrupt motives against the trial judge. (Paras 27, 28)
Facts of the case:
A suit was filed for the specific performance of an agreement to sell a house for a settled consideration, with a substantial amount paid as earnest money. The trial court decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiff. However, the High Court reversed the decree, dismissing the suit on the grounds that the agreement was a forged document resulting from a conspiracy. The respondent contended that the stamp paper bearing his thumb marks had been entrusted to the plaintiff for the purpose of acting as an arbitrator in a separate dispute, not for a sale agreement.
Findings of Court:
The court found the evidence of the scribe, the lawyer who prepared the draft, and the attesting witnesses to be trustworthy and natural. The respondent's theory regarding the arbitration was rejected as it was inconsistent with his conduct in related litigation and lacked corroboration from the other party involved in the alleged dispute. Additionally, the evidence presented to prove a significantly higher valuation of the property was deemed fantastic and unreliable.
Issues: The main issues were whether the agreement of sale was genuine, valid, and supported by consideration; whether the respondent's theory of arbitration explained the presence of his thumb marks on the stamp paper; and whether the High Court was justified in its findings and the language used in its judgment.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that when the intrinsic evidence of the document is natural and the oral evidence of disinterested attesting witnesses is consistent, the execution of the document is proved. The failure of the respondent to produce a key witness to support the arbitration theory and his contradictory conduct in court rendered his defense improbable. Furthermore, appellate courts must maintain judicial poise and avoid extravagant criticism of trial courts when different interpretations of evidence are possible, as judicial minds may react differently to the same evidence.
Result: Appeal allowed, the decree passed by the High Court is set aside and that of the trial court restored with costs throughout.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Appellant claims valid execution of sale agreement with earnest money; respondent alleges forgery and fraudulent use of stamp papers intended for arbitration. (Para 3 , 4 )
3. The respondent's arbitration theory was found unbelievable; property valuation evidence was unreliable; appellant's witnesses and the document's intrinsic nature supported the agreement's genuineness. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 )
4. Trial court findings of fact should not be reversed unless the evidence is completely unsatisfactory or justifies a conclusion of conspiracy. (Para 13 , 27 , 28 )
5. Appeal allowed — High Court decree set aside — Trial Court decree restored with costs. (Para 29 )
6. When can an appellate court reverse the findings of fact recorded by a trial court based on oral evidence?
An appellate court should not reverse trial court findings unless the evidence is so completely unsatisfactory that it justifies a conclusion of perjury or conspiracy, acknowledging that different judicial minds may react differently to the same evidence. (Para 13 , 27 )
7. Is expert evidence on handwriting conclusive in determining the genuineness of a document?
Expert evidence on handwriting is opinion evidence and is not conclusive; it must be weighed alongside other evidence, such as the testimony of attesting witnesses and the document's intrinsic features. (Para 26 )
8. What is the appropriate judicial approach for an appellate court when criticizing the findings or conduct of a trial judge?
Appellate courts should use temperate language and avoid intemperate criticism or imputations of corrupt motives, recognizing that a different view of the evidence is often possible. (Para 27 , 28 )
P.B.GAJENDRAGADKAR, J.
(1) THE appellant Pandit Ishweri Prasad Mishra sued the respondent Mohammad Isa for the specific performance of an agreement of sale executed. by him on the 18/05/1950,in the court of the 1st Additional SubJudge, Muzeffarpur. By the said agreement, the respondent had promised to execute a sale-deed in favour of the appellant in respects of his house situated at Sitamarhi Bazar, Sitamarhi. The appellants claim was decreed by the trial Court which ordered the respondent to execute a sale-deed, within a month from the date of the decree on receipt of Rs. 400.00 which is the balance of consideration remainig to be paid to him. The respondent challenged this decree by an appeal before the Patna High court, and his challenge has succeeded. In the result, the decree passed by the trial court was reversed and the appellants suit dismissed with costs throughout. It is against this decree that the appellant has come to court with a certificate issued by the Patna High court; and so, the principal question which arises in the present appeal is whether the agreement on which the appellants suit is based is genuine, valid and for consideration.
(2) THE subject-matter of the agreement of sale is a house belonging to the respondent. According to the appellant, at the time when the agreement was executed, the consideration for the transfer was settled at Rs. 14,000.00 out of which Rs. 1,090.00 were paid as earnest money. The agreement had stipulated that the sale-deed had to be executed within three months from its date; in other words, under the agreement, the respondent was bound to execute the sale-deed on or before the 18/08/1950. The appellant called upon therespondent to carry out the terms of the agreement and offered to pay the balance of Rs. 4,000.00 , but since the respondent did not comply with the demand made, by the appellant but attempted to dispute the genuineness and validity. of the agreement itself, the present suit was filed on 27/08/1950, for specific performance of the said agreement.
(3) THE appellants case is that negotiations for the sale of the respondents house had commenced on the 3/05/1950, between the father of the Appellant and the respondent at the instance of Bihari Lal Singh who acted as a negotiator, The respondent then claimed Rs. 20,000.00 as the price of the house and the appellants father was prepared to pay only Rs. 10,000.00 . On the 8th of May,1950 the parties met again when the appellant raised his offer to Rs. 13,000.00 , but the respondent refused to below Rs, 15,000.00 . At last on the 18/05/1950, the respondent went to the appellant and said, that he was willing to sell;, the house for Rs. 14,000.00 . The appellant was then told by the respondent that he was anxious to purchase an Icecream machine which was likely to cost Rs. 1,200.00 and so, he wanted the agreement to be made that very day. Both of them then went to Babu Amar Choudhary, a senior,lawyer of the place at about 9 A.M., but he had then gone to the court which was holding morning sittings, and so, the parties met him at his office at 2 P.M. along with the scribe Khakhan Singh and the necessary stamp paper.. Thereafter, the parties went to the house of Mr. Choudhary and he dictated the draft of the agreement in the presence of his son who was also a lawyer. The draft was taken down by Khakhan Singh. After the draft was thus completed, the appellant, the respondent and the scribe went to the house of the appellant. At this place Khakhan Singh (P.W.11) scribe copied the draft fair on a stamp paper which had already been purchased in the morning that day. After the draft was thus copied on a stamp paper, the appellant paid to the respondent Rs. 10,000.00 and the respondent executed the document admitting in his own handwriting the receipt of the earnest money of Rs. 10,000.00 . The document was then attested by Ganesh Thakur (P.W.5), Jamuna Singh (P.W. 8) and Bihari Lal Saraogi (P.W.9). That, in
