Overwritten thumb impressions and gross undervaluation undermined the sale agreement’s genuineness.

The plaintiffs sued for specific performance, alleging that the defendants had agreed to sell property and received ₹5,000 as advance.

The defendants denied the transaction and alleged that a thumb impression had been obtained on blank papers in connection with a loan guarantee.

The trial court decreed the suit, and the first appellate court dismissed the defendants’ appeal. The defendants then brought this second appeal under Section 100 CPC.

1. Whether the courts below properly analysed the alleged sale agreement, including the defendants’ claim that it was created on blank papers bearing a thumb impression.

2. Whether the plaintiffs had established readiness and willingness to perform their part of the contract, including whether the notice and plaint sufficiently expressed it.

3. Whether the agreement was genuine and whether the consideration was credible in light of the property’s value.

The appeal was brought under Section 100 CPC, which confines a second appeal to substantial questions of law; the Court admitted the appeal on such questions.

The Court also considered the requirement of readiness and willingness in a claim for specific performance, a requirement reflected in Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, although the judgment does not expressly cite that provision.

The Court assessed the agreement’s genuineness from the document itself and considered the stated consideration against the property’s guideline and market value.

On examining Ex.A1, the Court found that the thumb impressions on each page lacked clear space between the impressions and the agreement’s contents, and that the writing overwrote the impressions—particularly on the first and third pages. It therefore accepted the defendants’ account that the impressions had been placed on blank papers and held the agreement unreliable.

The Court further found that neither lower court had discussed whether the plaintiffs were ready and willing to perform.

It also considered the claimed price implausible: the guideline value for the stated extent was approximately ₹12,06,848, while the plaintiff claimed to have agreed to purchase 57.5 cents for a sum supported by only ₹5,000 paid in advance and ₹20,000 deposited with the suit. The Court considered this more consistent with the defendants’ loan-transaction explanation.

It made no order as to costs and closed the connected miscellaneous petition.