TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Appeal Allowed: Court Orders Specific Performance for Property Sale Agreement, Plaintiff to Deposit Rs. 15,000 in 4 Months.</h1> <h3>Velayudhan Versus Velayudhan</h3> Velayudhan Versus Velayudhan - TMI Issues Involved:1. Specific performance of an agreement to sell the property.2. Execution and validity of the agreement.3. Burden of proof regarding the execution of the document.4. Hardship due to specific performance.Detailed Analysis:1. Specific Performance of an Agreement to Sell the Property:The plaintiff sought specific performance of an agreement (Ext. A6) to sell the plaint schedule property for Rs. 85,000/-. The plaintiff claimed that Rs. 70,000/- was paid on the execution day, with the balance to be paid within one month. The defendants denied executing the agreement, asserting it was fabricated using signed blank papers given as security for a loan of Rs. 15,000/-. The lower court denied specific performance but granted a decree for Rs. 15,000/- to the plaintiff, which led to the present appeal.2. Execution and Validity of the Agreement:The lower court found no satisfactory evidence to prove the execution of the agreement and the passing of consideration. However, upon appeal, it was argued that the defendants had previously sold portions of the property to the plaintiff, indicating prior dealings. Witnesses (PWs 2 and 3) testified that the defendants signed the agreement in their presence. The court found the evidence of PWs 2 and 3 credible, despite minor discrepancies. The court concluded that the plaintiff had proven the execution of the document and the payment of Rs. 70,000/-.3. Burden of Proof Regarding the Execution of the Document:The court examined various precedents on the burden of proof in cases where the execution of a document is denied. It was noted that mere admission of a signature does not amount to the execution of the document. The court preferred the reasoning in Seithammarakkath Mammad v. Koyommatath Mammad 1957 KLT 328 and Ramlakshan Singh v. Gog Singh AIR 1931 Patna 219, which held that the plaintiff must prove both the execution and the consideration. The court emphasized that the plaintiff must provide some evidence to show the document was properly executed. The court concluded that the plaintiff had discharged this burden satisfactorily.4. Hardship Due to Specific Performance:The defendants contended that specific performance would cause them hardship as they conducted business in one of the rooms of the property. The court held that mere hardship does not prevent the granting of specific performance if the agreement is otherwise valid and enforceable. The court found no compelling reason to deny specific performance based on hardship.Conclusion:The court set aside the lower court's judgment, allowing the appeal and decreeing specific performance of Ext. A6. The plaintiff was directed to deposit the balance amount of Rs. 15,000/- within four months, after which the defendants must execute the sale deed. If the defendants default, the court will execute the document. Both parties were directed to bear their own costs, and the cross-objection was dismissed.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
