Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
MR. JUSTICE A. BADHARUDEEN, J
Chanduveettil Sakkeer Hussain, S/o. Siddique – Appellant
Versus
Ayisha Beevi – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
The plaintiff in O.S. No.46/2013 on the files of the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Tirur, has preferred this appeal under Section 96 read with Order XLI Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [hereinafter referred as ‘CPC’ for short], challenging the decree and judgment in the above case dated 09.08.2021, arraying additional defendant Nos.2 to 6, who are the legal representatives of the deceased original defendant as respondents.
2. Heard the learned counsel for appellant and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents. Perused the verdict under challenge, the records of the trial court and the decisions placed by both sides.
3. Parties in this appeal shall be referred with reference to their status before the trial court, hereafter.
4. Short facts: The plaintiff approached the trial court and sought the relief of specific performance of Ext.A1 agreement dated 20.07.2010, alleged to be executed between the plaintiff and defendant, agreeing to sell the plaint schedule property, having an extent of 23 cents at the rate of Rs.1,00,000/- per cent. The case advanced by the plaintiff in the plaint is that, out of the total consideration of Rs.23,00,000/-, Rs.19,00,000
The burden of proof lies on the party seeking relief, and the execution of the agreement must be proven with reliable evidence.
The limitation period for filing a suit for specific performance starts from the date of refusal of performance, not from the execution date of the agreement.
In a suit for specific performance, the plaintiff must prove the execution of the agreement and readiness to perform the contract, including financial capability.
The admissibility of signature in a document and the presumption under Section 114(e) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 were central to the judgment.
The plaintiff failed to prove the execution of the sale agreement, and the amendment to include a claim for the return of the advance amount was not permissible as it would change the nature of the s....
The mere execution of an agreement does not establish its contents or consideration; the plaintiff bears the burden to provide evidence, differing significantly from provisions concerning negotiable ....
The plaintiff must prove the genuineness of agreements and readiness to perform for specific performance; failure to do so results in dismissal of the suit.
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
