Sale agreement executed for loan security cannot be specifically enforced; only refund of consideration is permissible.

The Plaintiff (Respondent) filed a suit for specific performance based on a sale agreement dated December 17, 2013, for a property valued at Rs. 22,00,000/-, alleging he paid an advance of Rs. 20,00,000/-

The Defendant (Appellant) denied the agreement's intent, contending the Plaintiff and his brother were money lenders and that he had only borrowed Rs. 5,00,000/-

The Defendant alleged that the Plaintiff fraudulently used a blank signed stamp paper—provided as security—to create the sale agreement

The Trial Court decreed the suit in favor of the Plaintiff, directing the execution of the sale deed

The Defendant appealed, asserting the transaction was a loan and the property value was significantly higher (Rs. 70,00,000/-)

1. Whether the execution of Ex-A.1 (Suit Sale Agreement) was proved?

2. Whether Ex-A.1 was intended as a genuine sale of the property or merely as security for a loan transaction?

3. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to the relief of specific performance or the alternate relief of refund?

The Court primarily applied Section 103 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, placing the burden of proof for specific defenses on the defendant

It invoked Section 120 of the Evidence Act, noting a spouse is a competent witness for the other

The Court also assessed the discretionary nature of specific performance under the Specific Relief Act, particularly considering the "ready and willing" requirement and the true nature of the transaction

Furthermore, it applied the principle that the initial burden of proving a document lies on the proponent (Plaintiff), then shifts to the opponent (Defendant) once a prima facie case is made

The Court found the execution of the document (Ex-A.1) proved because the Plaintiff’s brother (an attestor) testified to its signing, and the Defendant failed to provide expert evidence to dispute the signatures

However, the Court scrutinized the *intent* behind the document.

It noted that the Plaintiff failed to reflect the alleged Rs. 20,00,000/- cash payment in income tax returns or provide bank statements to prove his financial capacity, despite claiming the money came from savings