Specific performance denied where agreement lacks signature of property owner and proof of authorized execution.

The plaintiff/appellant filed a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell dated 20.11.2007 (Ex.P-1) regarding property in Village Mangla, Bilaspur

The plaintiff alleged an agreement for Rs. 3,50,000, with Rs. 2,50,000 paid as advance to Defendant No. 2 (son of the owner, Defendant No. 1)

Defendant No. 1 (the recorded bhumiswami) denied executing the agreement or authorizing his son to sell the land

During the litigation, Defendant No. 1 sold the property to Defendant No. 4 via a registered sale deed

The Trial Court dismissed the plaintiff’s suit and allowed Defendant No. 4’s counterclaim, declaring her the lawful owner

The plaintiff appealed this decision under Section 96 of the CPC

1. Whether a valid and enforceable contract existed between the plaintiff and the owner (Defendant No. 1) for the sale of the suit property.

2. Whether the plaintiff proved the payment of earnest money (Rs. 2,50,000) to the defendants.

3. Whether the subsequent sale deed executed in favor of Defendant No. 4 was valid and superior to the plaintiff’s alleged prior agreement.

The Court applied Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, regarding first appeals.

It relied on fundamental principles of the Specific Relief Act and Contract Law, requiring proof of a "concluded contract" signed by the owner or a "lawfully authorized agent"

It also followed the principle that a registered sale deed carries a presumption of validity over an unproven prior agreement, and that a bona fide purchaser for value is protected unless prior notice of a valid contract is proven

The Court found that the plaintiff’s own testimony (P.W.1) admitted Defendant No. 1 (the owner) neither signed the agreement (Ex.P-1) nor was present during its execution

The Court noted that the plaintiff failed to produce any Power of Attorney or authorization letter proving Defendant No. 2 had the legal capacity to bind his father (who was reportedly paralyzed/incapacitated) to a sale

Discrepancies in witness testimonies (P.W.2 and P.W.3) further undermined the authenticity of the agreement, as the attesting witnesses admitted the owner was not present

Regarding the payment of Rs. 2,50,000, the Court observed a total lack of independent evidence or consistency in accounts regarding the mode and timing of payment

Conversely, Defendant No. 4 proved a valid registered title through mutation entries and proof of possession, which remained unshaken during cross-examination

The High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the Trial Court's judgment; the registered sale deed in favor of Defendant No. 4 was declared valid; and the court ordered the dismissal of the suit and the decreeing of the counterclaim in favor of Defendant No. 4