Facts
The Plaintiff (Respondent) filed a suit for Specific Performance, Possession, and Rectification of an Agreement to Sell regarding property No. D-193, Gauri Shankar Enclave, Delhi
Source reference: p. 1-2An initial Agreement was executed on 23.07.2011 for a consideration of Rs. 5,01,000/-, of which Rs. 2,06,000/- was paid as earnest money
Source reference: p. 2A second Agreement was executed on 12.05.2012, and the balance of Rs. 2,95,000/- was paid on 22.06.2012
Source reference: p. 2-3The Defendant (Appellant) failed to vacate the property or execute sale documents despite an Assurance Letter dated 21.07.2012
Source reference: p. 3-4The Defendant contended that the documents were fabricated and that his property papers were merely furnished as security for a loan taken by his brother, Mr. Vijay Kumar
Source reference: p. 5-6The Trial Court decreed the suit in favor of the Plaintiff on 24.09.2021
Source reference: p. 1, 11Issues
1. Whether the Defendant had executed the Agreements to Sell dated 23.07.2011 and 12.05.2012 in favor of the Plaintiff
Source reference: p. 13, para 532. Whether the transaction was a sale or merely a loan/guarantee arrangement involving the Defendant’s brother
Source reference: p. 15, para 623. Whether the Plaintiff was entitled to the rectification of the Agreement to Sell dated 12.05.2012 to include missing property details
Source reference: p. 19, para 76Law Applied
The Court applied Section 96 and Order XLI Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, regarding the procedure for First Appeals
Source reference: p. 1, 11Under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, the Court analyzed Section 45 regarding expert opinions on signatures
Source reference: p. 12principles of documentary evidence where oral testimony cannot override the contents of a proved written agreement
Source reference: p. 15The court also applied the principles of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, regarding the rectification of instruments based on mutual mistake and the discretionary but equitable grant of specific performance
Source reference: p. 11, 19Reasoning
The Court found that the execution of the Agreements was established because the stamp papers were purchased by the Defendant and the documents were witnessed by independent parties (PW-2 and PW-3) who were teachers, not "property dealers" as alleged
Source reference: p. 9-10, 17Significantly, the Defendant admitted his signatures on the first Agreement (Ex.PW-1/D) and the Notary’s register
Source reference: p. 9, 18The Court rejected the "loan guarantee" defense as the Defendant failed to produced his brother, Mr. Vijay Kumar, as a witness or provide any documentary proof of a loan
Source reference: p. 15Furthermore, a draft Written Statement (Ex.DW-1/P1) signed by the Defendant contained admissions of receiving earnest money
Source reference: p. 10, 16Regarding the variation in signatures, the Court held that since the Defendant admitted signing the papers (even if he claimed they were blank), he could not benefit from self-created discrepancies in his signature style
Source reference: p. 18Rectification was permitted because contemporaneous documents like the GPA and Will clearly identified the property, proving the omission in the Agreement was a mere clerical error
Source reference: p. 19Holding
The High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the Trial Court's judgment
It held that the Plaintiff successfully proved the execution of the Agreements to Sell and payment of full consideration of Rs. 5,01,000/-
Source reference: p. 19The Court affirmed the decree for Specific Performance, directing the Defendant to execute the title documents and deliver possession, and confirmed the rectification of the Agreement to Sell dated 12.05.2012 to include the suit property's description
Source reference: p. 11, 19Original Court PDF
Mr. Rajinder ChaturvedivsSmt. Shanti Singh
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in