Back
ROBIN PHUKAN
Rosline Anthony @ Reshim Antony, W/o Late Deshmond Anthony – Appellant
Versus
Mustt. Sureha Begum, W/o Late Abdul Hadee (Choudhury) – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Robin Phukan, J.
Heard Ms. R. Choudhury, learned counsel for the appellants and also heard Mr. D. Mozumder, learned Senior counsel assisted by Mr. R. Sarma, learned counsel for the respondents.
2. This appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, is directed against the judgment and decree dated 05.08.2015 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Karimganj, in Title Appeal No.9/2015. It is to be noted here that vide impugned judgment and decree dated 05.08.2015, the learned First Appellate Court had set aside the judgment and decree dated 02.01.2015, passed by the learned Munsiff No.1, Karimganj, in Title Suit No.143/2006, whereby the suit of the plaintiffs was dismissed.
3. The back ground facts leading to filing of the present appeal is briefly stated as under:-
The burden of proof lies with the party asserting a fact, and failure to substantiate claims can lead to dismissal of the appeal.
Point of Law : Suit for specific performance and permanent injunction – Agreement of Sale - non mentioning of the correct survey number in the agreement of sale cannot be held to be due to inadverten....
The plaintiff must prove the validity of the sale agreement and his readiness and willingness to perform the contract in a specific performance case.
The plaintiff must prove the execution of the sale agreement, readiness and willingness to perform the contract, and the validity of the agreement to claim specific performance.
Sale deeds must be proved by the signature of the executant as per Section 67 of the Evidence Act, and cannot be admitted without such proof, under Section 91, rendering erroneous decisions based on ....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of proving the genuineness of the agreement for sale, the payment of consideration, and the plaintiff's readiness and willingness a....
In a suit for specific performance, the Plaintiff must prove the genuineness of the agreement and his readiness to perform, failing which the suit must be dismissed.
The court upheld that corroborated expert evidence can establish the authenticity of a contested agreement, supporting the plaintiff's claim for specific performance.
Comparison of signatures by Court is always a hazardous course. Court should not as a matter of course loosely resort to application of Section 73 of Indian Evidence Act.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
