Suit – Suit for specific performance – A suit was filed by the plaintiff, the appellant herein, alleging that an agreement was entered into with the 1st defendant, the 2nd respondent herein, for purchase of two properties which are more fully described as Item No.1 and Item No.2 – The trial court based on the evidence, found that the plaintiff was always ready and willing to pay the balance consideration – Trial Court decreed the suit – The High Court, however, on a reading of the basic document produced, the sale agreement, found that there is clear alteration in so far as the recitals with respect to Item No.2, which was also written in a different ink – High Court found material alteration and reversed the decree of the trial court – Correctness:
Held: The 1st defendant did not enter the box to give evidence but filed a written statement pointing out the material alteration – Hence, it cannot be said that there was no plea regarding material alteration – The agreement produced at Annexure-1 speaks first of an extent of 1.40 acres, presumably Item No.1 with total consideration fixed at Rs.56,000/- @ Rs.40,000/- per acre – Then the agreement speaks of Item No.2 with an extent of 1 acre as having been included in the agreement to sell – However, the Schedule shows a total extent of 2.40 acres from which 50 cents is sold – No reliance can be placed on such an agreement with different extents in the recitals and the schedule, to grant specific performance – Further, the readiness and willingness established is by account statement of the plaintiff showing credit of Rs.70,500/- – If both items of property are included in the sale agreement, then the total consideration would be Rs. 96,000/- @ Rs.40,000/- per acre – Deducting the advance the balance sale consideration will be Rs.95,000/- – The claim of readiness and willingness of the plaintiff hence falls flat – Besides, section 73 of the Evidence Act, 1872 has any no application and in finding material alteration the courts are not obliged to always refer it to an expert; especially when it is clearly discernible on a mere perusal of the document, that too written in a different ink – No reason to interfere with the judgment of the High Court. [Paras 7, 8, 9, 10]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Headnotes prepared by: Ankit Gyan. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.