PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Harkesh Manuja, J.
Vijay Kumar Aggarwal – Appellant
versus
Khushal Singh – Respondent
RSA-1494-2016 (O&M) and RSA-1618-2016 (O&M)
Decided on 13.3.2023

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Admitted Signatures - Though Section 73 of the 1872 Act empowers the Court to compare the disputed signatures with the admitted signatures, however, the same cannot be done on a casual perusal or a mere glance, particularly without even recording an analysis of the characteristics of the admitted signatures as compared to those of the disputed one.
(2) Denial of Agreement - Mere denial of agreement by appellant/ defendant would not relieve the respondent/ plaintiff of his aforesaid statutory obligation.
(3) Plea of readiness and willingness - The appellate/ defendant was well within his right to raise the plea of readiness and willingness against respondent/ plaintiff, despite having denied the execution of the documents in question.
(4) Award decree of specific performance - Jurisdiction to award decree of specific performance is discretionary and the Courts are not bound to grant such relief merely because it is lawful to do so, though the discretion vested with the Courts being not arbitrary has to be exercised in a sound and reasonable, to fall within the four corners of sub-section (1) to Section 20 of the Act.

Headnote:

(A) Evidence Act, 1872 – S.73 – Comparison of disputed signatures with admitted signatures - though Section 73 of the 1872 Act empowers the Court to compare the disputed signatures with the admitted signatures, however, the same cannot be done on a casual perusal or a mere glance, particularly without even recording an analysis of the characteristics of the admitted signatures as compared to those of the disputed one - In the present case, from the perusal of judgment passed by the first Appellate Court, it can be traced out that no such exercise of comparing the characteristic of the disputed signatures with the acknowledged signatures was carried out and thus, in the absence thereof, the findings recorded by the first Appellate Court as regards the signatures of appellant/ defendant on the documents/ agreement in question, based upon mere self-perusal is set aside, thereby holding that the examination of aforementioned documents was not proved on record by the respondent/ plaintiff. [Paras 15, 17].

(B) Specific Relief Act, 1963 – S.16(c) – plea of readiness and willingness – if justified – When denied execution of Document - Section 16(c) of the Act has not been specifically referred to or dealt with therein; which statutorily enjoins the plaintiff-purchaser/vendee to establish his readiness and willingness to perform the essential terms of the contract which are to be performed by him under the agreement for the purpose of enforcement of his right of specific performance of the said contract and mere denial of agreement by appellant/ defendant would not relieve the respondent/ plaintiff of his aforesaid statutory obligation - Accordingly the appellate/ defendant was well within his right to raise the plea of readiness and willingness against respondent/ plaintiff, despite having denied the execution of the documents in question. In the present case, the respondent has not been able to establish on record his readiness to perform his part of the agreement in question as no documentary evidence has been produced on record by him to prove the balance sale consideration. [Paras 18, 20].

(C) Contract Act, 1872 – S.62 - Novation- once the document became non-effective on account of unilateral material alterations carried out therein, the plea of novation thereof may not be required to be dealt with. [Para 25].

(D) Specific Relief Act, 1963 – S.20 – Grant of Specific performance -by Court – Discretionary in nature - Admittedly, the jurisdiction to award decree of specific performance is discretionary and the Courts are not bound to grant such relief merely because it is lawful to do so, though the discretion vested with the Courts being not arbitrary has to be exercised in a sound and reasonable, to fall within the four corners of sub-section (1) to Section 20 of the Act. Considering the facts and circumstances of the present case, above and beyond the findings recorded in the preceding paragraphs as well as from the pleadings and the evidence available on record, the grant of discretionary relief of specific performance in favour of respondent/ plaintiff is not made out – Appeal allowed. [Paras 25 to 27].

Result: Appeal allowed.