The statutory presumption of authenticity for registered agreements mandates courts to uphold such documents unless credible evidence disproves them, especially in the absence of contest from the opposing party.

JUDGMENT :

SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM, J.

1. Captioned appeal is by the unsuccessful plaintiff, who has questioned the judgment and decree rendered in O.S. 604/2020 wherein plaintiff suit seeking relief of specific performance of contract based on the sale agreement dated 04.08.2016 is dismissed.

2. For the sake of brevity, the parties are referred to as per their rank before the trial Court.

3. Facts leading to the case are as under:

Plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance of contract in O.S. No. 604/2020. Plaintiff claimed that defendant is the owner of the suit land bearing Sy.No.156/45 measuring 38 guntas. Plaintiff claimed that defendant purchased the suit schedule property under registered sale deed dated 04.08.2016. Plaintiff further claimed that the defendant having acquired the property under registered sale deed, offered to sell 16 guntas, out of 38 guntas in Sy. No.156/45 and accordingly executed a registered agreement to sell on 04.08.2016 in favour of plaintiff. Plaintiff contended that, defendant received an advance amount of Rs. 14,00,000/- out of total sale consideration of Rs. 15,00,000/-. As per the plaintiff's version, defendant was required to receive the balance sale consideration of Rs. 1,00,000/- after getting the land transferred to his name in the revenue records. Plaintiff specifically asserted that since defendant was required to get the property transferred in his name, time was not the essence of the contract. Plaintiff specifically pleaded that he is willing to pay the balance sale consideration and is ever ready and willing to perform his part of contract.

4. The plaintiff's grievance is that although the defendant succeeded in getting the property records mutated in his name on the strength of a registered sale deed dated 04.08.2016, he did not evince any interest in concluding the transaction pursuant to the agreement to sell executed in favour of the plaintiff. Despite several requests made by the plaintiff, the defendant continued to postpone the execution of the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff. When contacted telephonically, the defendant informed the plaintiff that his name was yet to be reflected in the revenue records based on the sale deed, and therefore, he sought additional time to complete the transaction in favour of the plaintiff.

5. The plaintiff has further averred that upon verifying the revenue records, he discovered that the defendant had in fact secured an order from the Assistant Commissioner, and the mutation in the defendant's name had been effected as early as 20.02.2019. Despite this, the defendant failed to honour his commitment and continued to delay execution of the sale deed. Left with no other option, the plaintiff issued a legal notice dated 17.06.2020, calling upon the defendant to complete the sale transaction. However, the said notice was returned unserved with the postal endorsement “unclaimed” dated 27.06.2020. Consequently, the plaintiff was constrained to file the present suit seeking specific performance of the agreement to sell.

6. Since the defendant did not appear before the trial Court despite service of summons, he was placed ex parte. In order to establish his claim, the plaintiff entered the witness box and produced the original agreement to sell, which was marked as Ex.P1. He also produced the copy of the legal notice and other supporting documents. Additionally, the plaintiff placed on record a certified copy of the registered sale