In a suit for specific performance and a cross-suit to declare a sale void, the High Court upheld the trial court's decree. The trial court had framed issues regarding the genuineness of a declaration dated 20.05.2004 (Ex. A-10), the validity of an unregistered Agreement of Sale (30.03.1995) and a registered Sale Deed (28.03.2003), and the payment of consideration.
The court held that a bare admission of a party to the execution of a document, without independent evidence, is insufficient to prove its contents, especially when contradicted by a charge of forgery. The burden lies on the party relying on such a document. The appellants, who contested the genuineness of the declaration, failed to examine witnesses to support their claim, and the fact that the senior counsel in support of the declaration admitted to signing it contradicted the claim of fabrication.
Regarding the Agreement of Sale, the court clarified that under Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, the agreement merely creates a personal obligation and does not transfer an interest in immovable property; a registered Sale Deed is necessary for title transfer. However, under the proviso to Section 49 of the Registration Act, the unregistered Agreement was admissible as evidence of a contract in a suit for specific performance.
On the merits of specific performance, the court found that while the initial buyer had performed his part by registering the sale, the agreed balance survey numbers were not demarcated by the seller. As reciprocal obligations were fixed in order and recited, the plaintiff could not be barred unless the defendant failed to perform their part first. The plaintiff proved readiness and willingness to pay the balance consideration, whereas the defendant failed to demarcate the land.
The claim of fraud lacked particularisation. Allegations of falsification of documents must be substantiated in accordance with Order VI Rule 4 CPC, which the appellants failed to do.
The suit was within the limitation period starting from the date performance was fixed or refused. The trial court's findings on evidence were reinforced, and the common judgment and decree did not require interference.
