1. Specific performance of agreement of sale — Defendant admitted receipt of part consideration but denied extension agreement and readiness. (Para 1 , 3 , 6 )
Back
Next 
2024 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 36258
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Ashok S. Kinagi, J
Lakshmidevamma – Appellant
Versus
S S Ranganathaiah – Respondent
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 1561 OF 2013 (SP)
Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: S N Bhat
For the Respondents: A N Gangadharaiah
For the Appellants/Petitioners: S N Bhat
For the Respondents: A N Gangadharaiah
Failure to formally compare signatures under Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act does not invalidate a decree for specific performance if the defendant's conduct (such as denying signatures on their own court filings) demonstrates a lack of bona fides and the plaintiff proves readiness and willingness.
Headnote:(A) Specific Relief Act, 1963 - Sections 16(c) and 20 - Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 73 - Specific performance of contract - Readiness and willingness of plaintiff - Denials by defendant.
(B) Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 73 - Comparison of signatures - When a party denies their own signatures on a written statement and vakalathnama during cross-examination, it clearly demonstrates a lack of bona fides and an attempt to evade the claim. While the trial court should ideally compare signatures to ascertain authenticity, a failure to strictly follow the comparison procedure under Section 73 does not constitute sufficient grounds to dismiss a suit when the overall conduct of the defendant is dishonest and contrary to the evidence. (Paras 14, 17)
(C) Specific Relief Act, 1963 - Section 20 - Exercise of discretion - A plea regarding hardship raised by a vendor cannot be permitted to be entertained, particularly when such a plea was not raised in the original written statement. (Para 18)
Facts of the case:
The plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance of a contract based on an agreement of sale dated 16.03.1998 and a subsequent agreement dated 23.06.1999. The defendant admitted to the first agreement and receiving part consideration but denied the execution of the subsequent agreement and the receipt of further funds. During the trial, the defendant went to the extent of denying her own signatures on the written statement and the vakalathnama filed in court.
Findings of Court:
The courts below rightly found that the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform the contract. The defendant's denial of her own signatures on legal documents proved her lack of bona fides. The failure of the trial court to formally compare signatures under the Indian Evidence Act did not vitiate the judgment given the evident falsehood of the defendant's claims.
Issues: Whether the courts below correctly exercised discretionary power under Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act, whether the subsequent agreement was proved despite the expiration of the initial timeline, and whether the failure to follow the procedure under Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act affected the decree.
Ratio Decidendi: A defendant's conduct in denying their own signatures on court filings indicates bad faith, which outweighs a procedural omission by the court to formally compare signatures under Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act. Furthermore, hardship pleas not pleaded in the written statement cannot be used to defeat a decree for specific performance.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- practice and procedure
- contract law
- property law
Table of Contents
2. Plaintiff argued readiness and willingness to perform; defendant contended suit barred by limitation and no extension agreement existed. (Para 10 , 11 )
3. Defendant's denial of signature on vakalatnama and written statement showed lack of bona fides; procedural lapse not fatal. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 )
4. Failure to follow Section 73, Evidence Act for signature comparison does not vitiate decree if defendant's conduct is dishonest. (Para 16 , 17 )
5. Second appeal dismissed; judgments and decrees of courts below confirmed with no order as to costs. (Para 19 )
6. What is the consequence of a party denying their signature on a document filed in court proceedings?
Such denial, if shown to be dishonest, demonstrates lack of bona fides and the court may proceed against the party for perjury. (Para 14 , 16 )
7. Is a court's failure to follow Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act for comparison of signatures a ground to set aside a decree?
No, where the defendant's conduct is not bona fide, mere failure to follow Section 73 does not warrant dismissal of the suit. (Para 17 )
8. Can a plea of hardship under Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act be raised for the first time in appeal?
No, such plea cannot be permitted if it was not raised in the written statement before the trial court. (Para 18 )
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SEC.100 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT & DECREE DTD. 25.7.2013 PASSED IN R.A.NO.32/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE V ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE, TIPTUR, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 17.12.2011 PASSED IN O.S.NO.111/2000 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC., TIPTUR.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This second appeal is filed by the appellant challenging the judgment and decree dated 25.07.2013, passed in R.A.No.32/2012 by the V Additional District & Sessions Judge, Tiptur, confirming the judgment and decree dated 17.12.2011, passed in O.S.No.111/2000 by the Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, Tiptur.
2. For the sake of convenience, parties are referred to as per their ranking before the trial Court. The appellant is the defendant and respondent is the plaintiff.
3. The brief facts leading rise to filing of this appeal are as under:
Plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance of contract. It is the case of the plaintiff that, the defendant is the absolute owner and in possession of the suit schedule property. Defendant agreed to sell the suit schedule property for a consideration of Rs.6,50,000/- and executed an agreement of sale dated 16.03.1998, by receiving advance amount of Rs.3,07,551.80 ps. and clearance of loan amount of Rs.1,42,448.20 ps., to Tiptur Town House Building Co-operative Society, Tiptur. The defendant received total advance amount of Rs.4,50,000/- as part payment. It was agreed that the plaintiff shall pay the balance consideration amount of Rs.2,00,000/- within 15 months and to get execute the registered sale deed from the defendant. Plaintiff secured the balance consideration amount of Rs.2,00,000/- and called upon the defendant to receive the balance consideration and to execute a registered sale deed. The plaintiff paid a sum of Rs.1,95,000/- and balance due was Rs.5,000/-. The plaintiff offered the defendant to accept the balance consideration amount and to execute a registered sale deed and further contended that the defendant has also executed another agreement dated 23.06.1999, extending the time to execute the registered sale deed on or before 23.06.2000, by receiving balance consideration before the Sub-Registrar. Plaintiff requested the defendant to receive the balance consideration amount and execute a registered sale deed. But the defendant declined for the same. Hence cause of action arose for the plaintiff to file a suit for specific performance of contract.
4. Defendant filed written statement admitting the execution of agreement of sale dated 16.03.1998 and also receiving advance amount of Rs.4,50,000/-, but denied the execution of agreement dated 23.06.1999, and receiving of Rs.1,95,000/-. It is contended that the suit filed by the plaintiff is barred by limitation. It is contended that the defendant was/is ready and willing to perform his part of contract by receiving balance consideration amount, but the plaintiff has not come forward to pay the balance consideration amount. Hence, the defendant got issued legal notice to the plaintiff intimating the actual state of affairs. On these grounds, sought for dismissal of the suit.
5. The Trial Court, on the basis of the above said pleadings, framed the following issues:
(1) Whether the plaintiff proves that, on 16.03.1998 the defendant has agreed to alienate the suit schedule property for Rs.6,50,000/- and executed an agreement of sell by receiving the earnest amount of Rs.3,07,551-18?
(2) Whether the plaintiff proves that, he has remitted Rs.1,42,448-20 to the Tiptur Town House Building Co-operative society, Tiptur under receipt No.1279 as per the say of defendant, out of balance consideration amount?
(3) Whether plaintiff proves that, on 23.06.1999 the defendant again received Rs. 1,95,000/- out of balance consideration amount and executed another agreement and agreeing to execute another agreement and agreeing to execu
