The execution of an agreement does not equate to entitlement for specific performance without proving readiness and willingness to perform contractual obligations.

P.Krishna Kumar, J.

An unsuccessful plaintiff in a suit for specific performance of a contract for sale of an immovable property is the appellant.

2. According to the appellant, the respondent/defendant executed Ext.A1, a registered agreement for sale dated 26.04.2016, agreeing to sell his immovable property having an extent of 2.02 Ares, together with a double-storied building standing thereon, within a period of three months, for a total sale consideration of Rs.40,00,000/-. At the time of execution of the agreement, an amount of Rs.7,00,000/- was paid as advance sale consideration. The appellant contends that she was always ready and willing to perform her part of the contract, but the respondent evaded execution of the sale deed and failed to perform the obligations required under the agreement within the stipulated period. The appellant thereupon issued Ext.A2 lawyer notice to the respondent, which was duly served, as evidenced by Ext.A3 acknowledgment card.

3. The respondent stoutly resisted the suit, contending that Ext.A1 was signed by him under compulsion. According to him, by executing Ext.A1, he never intended to convey the property, as he had no other land or building for his residence. It is alleged that the document was executed only to secure a chit transaction between one Haroon, the nephew of the appellant, and the wife of the respondent, for an amount of Rs.6,95,000/-.

4. Upon an elaborate consideration of the oral and documentary evidence, the trial court concluded that Ext.A1 agreement was executed only as a security document, as alleged by the respondent. The court further observed that there was no proof either regarding payment of the alleged advance amount or with respect to the financial capacity of the appellant to pay the balance sale consideration of Rs.33,00,000/-.

5. We have heard Sri. Millu Dandapani, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant. The respondent was set ex parte.

6. The learned counsel for the appellant persuasively argued that, when an agreement for sale is registered, a strong presumption arises in favour of the appellant, and in such circumstances, the burden lay upon the respondent to prove his contention that the agreement was executed only as a security. It was further contended that the oral evidence of PW1, coupled with the registered agreement, was sufficient to decree the suit, and that the trial court failed to appreciate the evidence in its proper perspective.

7. It is true that ordinarily a court may draw a presumption that a registered document has been validly executed. However, such presumption extends only to the execution of the document and not to the correctness of the recitals contained therein. It is settled law that admission of a document in evidence is distinct from proof of its contents. In a suit for specific performance, mere proof of execution of an agreement for sale will not entitle the plaintiff to relief, unless readiness and willingness to perform the contractual obligations are also established. With this legal position in mind, we proceed to consider whether the evidence on record is sufficient to hold in favour of the appellant.

8. PW1, the appellant, deposed in cross-examination that out of the alleged advance sale consideration of Rs.7,00,000/-, an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- was withdrawn from her bank account and the remaining Rs.5,00,000/- was given by her sister’s daughter. She further deposed that the balance sale consideration of Rs.33,00,000/- was also agreed to be provided to her by the children of her sister.

9. Despite the respondent having stoutly denied the existence of the contract and having set up a specific defence as noticed above, the appellant did no