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>Specific performance suit dismissed due to unreliable payment evidence and irregular witness signatures in agreement</h1> <h3>R. RADHAKRISHNA PRASAD Versus SWAMINATHAN & ANR.</h3> R. RADHAKRISHNA PRASAD Versus SWAMINATHAN & ANR. - TMI Issues:1. Specific performance of agreement for sale.2. Refund of advance sale consideration.3. Proof of payment of advance consideration.Specific Performance of Agreement for Sale:The appellant/plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance of an agreement dated 26.03.1998 for the sale of a property by defendant no. 1. The Trial Court directed defendant no. 1 to refund Rs. 18,00,000 to the plaintiff due to failure in executing the sale deed. However, the High Court modified the decree, allowing the plaintiff to recover only Rs. 3,00,000 with 12% interest per annum from defendant no. 1. The High Court found that the plaintiff was ready to pay the balance sale consideration, but the defendant delayed the sale deed execution, leading to the suit for specific performance.Refund of Advance Sale Consideration:The plaintiff claimed specific performance of the agreement or refund of advance sale consideration of Rs. 18,00,000 along with interest and other expenses. Defendant no. 1 contested the suit, denying the transaction and alleging the plaintiff's claim was false. The Trial Court found the agreement genuine, service of suit notice valid, and plaintiff ready with the sale consideration. Despite defendant no. 1's claim that the property's value exceeded the sale consideration, the Trial Court directed refund of Rs. 18,00,000 with interest. The High Court modified this, allowing refund of only Rs. 3,00,000 with interest, based on lack of evidence for the additional Rs. 15,00,000 payment.Proof of Payment of Advance Consideration:The main issue in the appeal was whether the plaintiff proved payment of Rs. 3,00,000 initially and an additional Rs. 15,00,000 to defendant no. 1. Both lower courts confirmed the initial payment, but the High Court found lack of evidence for the additional Rs. 15,00,000 payment. The High Court noted discrepancies in the documents and lack of corroboration for the substantial payment. The plaintiff's statement without corroboration was deemed unreliable, leading to dismissal of the appeal by the Supreme Court.In conclusion, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the High Court's decision on the refund amount and finding no merit in the plaintiff's case. The judgment focused on the lack of evidence for the additional payment claimed by the plaintiff, leading to the modification of the decree for refund.
TaxTMI 