Full Judgment Text
2025 INSC 1030
Reportable
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Civil Appeal No.11080 of 2014
Syed Basheer Ahmed
…Appellant
Versus
M/s. Tinni Laboratories Private Limited & Anr.
…Respondents
O R D E R
1. A suit for specific performance was decreed by the trial
court, which was dismissed by the High Court in appeal,
reversing the judgment and decree. The suit was filed by the
plaintiff, the appellant herein, alleging that an agreement was
st nd
entered into with the 1 defendant, the 2 respondent herein,
for purchase of two properties which are more fully described
as Item No.1 and Item No.2. Admittedly, Item No.2 belonged
nd
to a third party and Item No.1 was owned by the 2
nd
respondent. The 2 respondent made the plaintiff believe that
he was in possession of Item No.2 property which he had
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
KAPIL TANDON
Date: 2025.08.23
12:42:03 IST
Reason:
st
agreed to purchase from its real owner. The 1 respondent
Page 1 of 7
Civil Appeal No.11080 of 2014
nd
who was the 2 defendant in the suit later purchased both Item
No.1 and 2 and made valuable constructions thereon. The trial
court based on the evidence, found that the plaintiff was always
ready and willing to pay the balance consideration and time
was never the essence of contract since it stood extended from
time to time till 12.02.1985. The trial court rejected the
contention raised regarding material alteration in the
agreement and decreed the suit.
2. 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. Relying on Seth
1
Loonkaran Sethiya v. Mr. Ivan E. John and Ors. , the High
Court found material alteration and reversed the decree of the
trial court.
3. Mr. G. Sivabalamurugan, learned counsel appearing for
the appellant argued that on 15.07.1984, an agreement was
entered into for sale of 2.40 acres, for a total sale consideration
of Rs.56,000/- and an advance of Rs.1,000/- was paid. The
1
(1977) 1 SCC 379
Page 2 of 7
Civil Appeal No.11080 of 2014
agreement referred to both Item Nos.1 and 2, the former
st
belonging to the 1 defendant and the later belonging to the
second. The period within which the sale deed was to be
executed was three months. The plaintiff was always ready and
willing to pay the balance sale consideration and on
11.10.1984, within the three month period, a notice was issued
st
to the 1 defendant, expressing the readiness and willingness
to pay the balance consideration and requiring the execution
st
of the sale deed. The 1 defendant replied by a letter dated
22.01.1985, demanding the balance amount with 18% interest.
st nd
On 11.02.1985, the 1 defendant sold Item No.2 to 2
defendant and later on, a demand draft of Rs.1,000/- was sent,
purportedly in refund of the advance which was returned by
st
the plaintiff. Subsequently, on 09.03.1985 again, 1 defendant
nd
sold Item No.1 to 2 defendant, before which the suit for
specific performance was fled on 01.03.1985.
4. The learned counsel read over to us the judgment of the
trial court and argued that the High Court erred in reversing
the findings and the judgment and decree passed by the trial
court. It is pointed out that there was clear evidence regarding
Page 3 of 7
Civil Appeal No.11080 of 2014
the agreement and having established the readiness and
willingness, the trial court had rightly passed the decree,
st
especially when there was no evidence led on behalf of the 1
defendant. The alteration was never urged before the trial
st
court by the 1 defendant nor was there any deposition to that
extent. An alteration could not have been found by the High
Court merely on looking at the documents and it should have
been properly analyzed with an expert as provided under
Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
5. Mr. D. Ramakrishna Reddy learned counsel for the
nd
respondents, on the other hand points out that the 2
defendant was always in possession of the property. The
interpolation found by the High Court was on a mere reading
of the documents, which is permissible, and Section 73 has no
application. The High Court observed that the interpolation is
so blatant, the agreement having been written in two different
inks, there is no cause for interference to the judgment of the
High Court.
6. Trite is the principle that the plaintiff should establish
his case before the defendant is called upon to offer his
Page 4 of 7
Civil Appeal No.11080 of 2014
defense by disproving the case of the plaintiff and rebutting
any presumption that could have been drawn from the
circumstances. The relief of specific performance was sought
for, based on the agreement produced by the plaintiff himself.
The High Court has looked at the agreement to find material
alteration which according to the High Court is clearly
discernible; especially when two inks were used in the
agreement. The details of Item No.2 as also the alleged
agreement to sell that plot, was found to be clearly
interpolated in the agreement. The agreement, hence, was
found to be tainted and in those circumstances, the suit had no
legs to stand.
st
7. True, the 1 defendant did not enter the box to give
evidence but filed a written statement pointing out the material
nd
alteration. The 2 defendant, who stepped into the shoes of the
st
1 defendant entered the box and gave evidence. Hence, it
cannot be said that there was no plea regarding material
alteration, which was found by the High Court on a mere
perusal of the document; on which document, the entire suit
was based on.
Page 5 of 7
Civil Appeal No.11080 of 2014
8. In this context we cannot but notice that the agreement,
a translated copy, 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
1acre 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.
9. Pertinent is also the fact that the plaintiff before the trial
nd
court gave up his claim for conveyance of the 2 item and
pressed only the first part of the agreement clearly putting to
Page 6 of 7
Civil Appeal No.11080 of 2014
peril his prayer for specific performance based on the tainted
agreement. We are not convinced that Section 73 has any
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. Even otherwise, as found by us, the
plaint fails.
10. We find absolutely no reason to interfere with the
judgment of the High Court and reject the appeal. No costs.
11. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
……..……….……………………. J.
(PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA)
………………………………………J.
(K. VINOD CHANDRAN)
New Delhi;
August 21, 2025.
Page 7 of 7
Civil Appeal No.11080 of 2014