Court upholds sale agreement, dismisses appeal for lack of evidence, stresses hardship requirement in performance claims.

The judgment upheld the validity of the agreement to sell, dismissed the appeal due to lack of substantial evidence to challenge the lower courts' findings, and emphasized the importance of establishing hardship under the relevant legal provisions to contest specific performance claims.

---

---

Issues:
1. Suit for possession by way of specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 07.06.2003.
2. Allegation of failure by defendants to execute the sale deed on the agreed date.
3. Contention of fiduciary relationship between defendants and an attesting witness.
4. Examination of evidence to establish execution of the agreement to sell and passing of consideration.
5. Dispute regarding the authenticity of the agreement to sell and the involvement of the attesting witness.
6. Analysis of the evidence presented by both parties and the findings of the trial court and appellate court.
7. Application of Section 20 of the Special Relief Act in the absence of a plea of hardship by the defendants.

Detailed Analysis:

1. The plaintiff filed a suit for possession based on an agreement to sell dated 07.06.2003, alleging that the defendants failed to execute the sale deed on the agreed date despite receiving earnest money and agreeing to the sale terms.

2. The defendants contested the suit, denying the execution of the agreement to sell and alleging a fiduciary relationship between an attesting witness and the plaintiff, casting doubt on the authenticity of the agreement.

3. The trial court and appellate court found the execution of the agreement to sell duly proved based on the evidence presented, rejecting the plea of fiduciary relationship as unsubstantiated.

4. The attesting witness and other witnesses corroborated the due execution of the agreement, with the plaintiff demonstrating readiness to fulfill the agreement terms by presenting the balance sale consideration.

5. The defense's argument regarding the alleged collusion in preparing the agreement was refuted by the evidence presented, highlighting contradictions in the defense's stance and the lack of substantial evidence to support their claims.

6. The courts below analyzed the evidence thoroughly, concluding that the plaintiff's case was supported by trustworthy accounts and reliable witness testimonies, leading to the dismissal of the appeal due to lack of grounds for interference.

7. The court emphasized the importance of not reappreciating evidence in a second appeal and highlighted the natural consequence of proving the agreement to sell, unless hardship under Section 20 of the Special Relief Act is pleaded, which was not the case here, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.

In conclusion, the judgment upheld the validity of the agreement to sell, dismissed the appeal due to lack of substantial evidence to challenge the lower courts' findings, and emphasized the importance of establishing hardship under the relevant legal provisions to contest specific performance claims.

---