Back
2015 Supreme(Mad) 2103
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
R. MALA, J.
Chikkannan (Died) & Others – Appellant
Versus
A.R. Perumal (Deceased) & Others – Respondent
S.A.No. 1408 of 2008
Decided on : 25-06-2015
For the Appellants:V. Raghavachari for M.A.P. Thangavel, Advocates.
For the Respondents:R1, Died, R2 to R4, K. Raman, R5 & R6, I.C. Vasudevan, Advocates.
The admissibility and limitations of handwriting expert's report as corroborating evidence.
Headnote:
specific performance - Sale Agreement - Indian Evidence Act, Section 73 - The judgment discusses the validity of a sale agreement and the admissibility of handwriting expert's report. It highlights the importance of examining the handwriting expert and the limitations of their opinion as corroborating evidence.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiffs entered into a sale agreement with the first defendant for a property. The first defendant refused to execute the sale deed, leading to a lawsuit for specific performance.
Finding of the Court:
The trial court decreed the suit, but the first appellate court dismissed it based on a handwriting expert's report. The second appeal set aside the first appellate court's decision and restored the trial court's judgment.
Issues: Validity of sale agreement, admissibility of handwriting expert's report, and the sufficiency of evidence.
Ratio Decidendi: The judgment emphasizes the importance of examining the handwriting expert and the limitations of their opinion as corroborating evidence. It also highlights the need for the court to independently assess the evidence before reaching a decision.
Final Decision: The second appeal is allowed, the judgment and decree passed by the first appellate court are set aside, and the judgment and decree passed by the trial court are restored.
1. The second appeal arises out of the judgment and decree dated 26.07.2005 made in A.S.No.55 of 1990 on the file of the Principal Sub-Court, Gobichettipalayam and reversing the judgment and decree dated 16.09.1989 made in O.S.No.401 of 1981 on the file of the Additional District Munsif Court, Gobichettipalayam, Erode District.
2. The averments made in the plaint are as follows:-
(i) The suit property belongs to the first defendant and the defendants wanted to sell the property. The plaintiffs were in the look out for the purchase of the property. Both parties agreed for the said course fixing the sale consideration of Rs.8,000/-and entered into an agreement on 29.06.1977. The first defendant entered into a sale agreement on behalf of himself and the minors/defendants 2 and 3 and received Rs.1,500/- from the plaintiffs on the date of agreement. It was also agreed that if the plaintiffs paid the balance of sale price of Rs.6,500/- before the 15th Thai namely, 28.01.1978, the first defendant would receive the amount and execute a sale deed for himself and as guardian for the minor defendants 2 and 3 in favour of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs were also put in possession of the suit property on the date of agreement itself.
(ii) Subsequent to the date of agreement, the first defendant received Rs.4,500/- from the plaintiffs on 21.09.1977 and he had made an endorsement also in the agreement itself, hence there is only a balance of Rs.2,000/- towards balance of sale price.
(iii) Even though the plaintiffs are ready and willing to perform their part of contract, the first defendant was postponing to perform his part of contract. Ultimately, the plaintiffs tendered the amount of Rs.2,000/- to the first defendant on 21.01.1978 and purchased stamp papers for the sale deed, but the first defendant refused to execute the sale deed. Therefore, the plaintiffs issued a registered notice to the first defendant, but the first defendant refused to receive the same.
(iii) During the pendency of the suit, both the defendants attained majority and declared as major, first plaintiff died and his legal heirs are impleaded as plaintiffs 3 to 5.
(iv) Since the defendants are not ready to execute the sale deed, the plaintiffs constrained to file the suit for specific performance directing the defendants to receive the balance sale price of Rs.2,000/- from plaintiffs and execute a sale deed for Rs.8,000/- in favour of the plaintiffs and if the defendants failed to do so within the time stipulated, directing the execution of the sale deed through process of Court. Since the plaintiffs are already in possession of the suit property in pursuance of the contract, no separate relief of possession is prayed for. Thus, the plaintiffs prayed for decree.
3. The gist and essence of the written statement filed by the first defendant is as follows:
(i) This defendant did not execute any agreement in favour of the plaintiffs as alleged by the plaintiffs and did not want to sell any property. The sale agreement itself is a forged one.
(ii) The suit is barred by limitation. Under law, the suit for specific performance cannot be against minor. Therefore, he prayed for dismissal of the suit.
4. The gist and essence of the written statement filed by the defendants 2 and 3 are as follows:
(i) The suit against these defendants who are minors is not maintainable and the relief of specific performance against the minors is misconceived one. The value of the suit property is much more than the paltry sum of Rs.8,000/-, which is fixed as sale consideration as alleged by the plaintiffs. Therefore, defendants 2 and 3 prayed for dismissal of the suit.
5. The Learned Trial Judge after considering the averments both in the plaint and written statement and arguments on either side counsel, has framed necessary issues and on perusing the oral and documentary evidence viz., P.W.1 to P.W.4, D.W.1, D.W.2 and Exs.A1 to A7 and Exs.B1 to B4, decreed the suit. Aggrieved against the judgment
