Certificate of Posting Alone Insufficient to Prove Service or Payment for Specific Performance.

The plaintiff (respondent) filed a suit for specific performance of an agreement for re-conveyance dated 07.07.1974, or alternatively, a declaration that a 1973 sale deed was merely security for a loan

The plaintiff claimed that out of financial distress, she executed a registered sale deed in favor of the defendant (appellant) for Rs. 30,000 as security, with a subsequent agreement to re-convey the property upon repayment

While eight installments were paid and acknowledged, the plaintiff alleged a final lump-sum payment of Rs. 15,000 occurred in August 1975 without a receipt

The defendants denied this payment and asserted the 1973 deed was an absolute sale

The Trial Court dismissed the suit, finding the plaintiff failed to prove the final payment or readiness and willingness

The First Appellate Court reversed this, decreeing the suit based on a letter sent under a "Certificate of Posting" (Ext. 1) as proof of payment

The defendants challenged this in a Second Appeal before the High Court.

1. Whether a letter dispatched under a "Certificate of Posting" (Ext. 1) has evidentiary value to prove delivery or payment, and whether it raises a mandatory or permissive presumption

2. Whether the plaintiff established "readiness and willingness" under Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act in the absence of a receipt for the substantial final payment

3. Whether time was the essence of the contract given the forfeiture clauses in the agreement

4. Whether the First Appellate Court erred in reversing the Trial Court’s findings without addressing the core reasoning and material contradictions in the evidence

The court applied Section 100 of the CPC, noting that interference in a Second Appeal is warranted if the lower court's findings are perverse or ignore material evidence

It relied on Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, which mandates continuous readiness and willingness as a condition precedent for specific performance

Regarding postal evidence, the court applied Section 114 (f) of the Evidence Act and Section 27 of the General Clauses Act, distinguishing between the mandatory presumption of registered post and the weak, permissive presumption of a "Certificate of Posting"

Precedents including Gadakh Yashwantrao Kankarrao v. E.V. alias Balasaheb Vikhe Patil [para. 17] and L.M.S. Ummu Saleema v. B.B. Gujaral [para. 15] were used to establish that a certificate of posting is easily forged and does not compel a presumption of delivery.

Finally, Section 55 of the Indian Contract Act and Chand Rani v. Kamal Rani were applied to determine if time was the essence of the contract

First, the court held that the Appellate Court erroneously treated the "Certificate of Posting" (Ext. 1) as conclusive proof of payment.

Per Gadakh Yashwantrao, such certificates provide only a permissive presumption that the court is not bound to draw, especially when the defendant denies receipt and the circumstances are suspicious

Second, the court observed a "sudden departure" from the parties' established conduct; while the first eight installments were formally receipted, the largest and final payment (Rs. 15,000) lacked any documentary evidence

This inconsistency, coupled with contradictions in oral testimony regarding the date and place of payment, rendered the plaintiff’s version improbable

Third, the court held that the First Appellate Court failed to meet the Trial Court’s reasoning "in close quarters" as required by Santosh Hazari v. Purushottam Tiwari, merely substituting its conclusions without addressing the material discrepancies identified by the Trial Court

Consequently, the plaintiff failed to meet the mandatory burden of proving "readiness and willingness" under Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act

It held that the First Appellate Court’s findings regarding the balance payment and the presumption of service were unsustainable in law

The Court concluded that the plaintiff failed to prove the performance of her part of the contract or her readiness and willingness to do so

The judgment and decree of the Trial Court (Subordinate Judge-I, Bhagalpur) dismissing the suit were restored and confirmed

No order as to costs was made