2008 (12) TMI 799 - SC - Indian Laws

Decree for specific performance u/s 16(c) - forged signature in the agreement of sale - Whether an agreement of sale (Ext. 2) executed only by the vendor, and not by the purchaser, is valid? HELD THAT - Since the trial Court analyzed and compared the opinion of two experts with materials placed before them and preferred to accept the opinion of expert examined by the side of the plaintiff, there is no reason to dispute the said conclusion. In the light of the controversy the Division Bench of the High Court also compared the signature found in other documents such as vakalatnama, written statement with that of the signature found in Ext.2 and concluded that the signature found in the agreement of sale was that of the defendant Ms. Kanika Bose. We are of the view that there is no valid reason to disturb the factual finding based on acceptable materials. The learned Single Judge of the High Court committed an error in taking a contrary view. As evident from the fact that the document is signed by the vendor and duly witnessed by four witnesses and was delivered to the purchaser. Apart from a separate endorsement made on the date of the agreement itself by the vendor acknowledging the receipt as advance, it also contains a second endorsement (which is also duly witnessed) by the vendor, acknowledging the receipt of a further sum and confirming that the total earnest money received. This shows that the purchaser accepted and acted in terms of the agreement which was signed, witnessed and delivered to her as a complete instrument and that she then obtained an endorsement thereon by the vendor, in regard to second payment. If the agreement was not complete, the vendor would not have received a further amount and endorsed an acknowledgement thereon. the evidence of the witnesses also shows that there was a concluded contract. Therefore, even though the draftsman who prepared the agreement might have used a format intended for execution by both vendor and purchaser, the manner in which the parties had proceeded, clearly demonstrated that it was intended to be executed only by the vendor alone. Thus we hold that the agreement of sale (Ext. 2) signed only by the vendor was valid and enforceable by the purchaser. The trial Court and the Division Bench also concluded that the plaintiff had fulfilled the conditions as stated in Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act and in that event the plaintiff is entitled decree for specific performance which was rightly granted by the trial Court. Though ld Counsel for the appellants pointed out that the claim of the plaintiff that she was put in possession of a portion of the suit property in part performance was not accepted by the trial Court, in the light of the categorical findings about the validity of Ext. 2 and satisfactory proof of other conditions for granting the decree for specific performance, we are unable to accept the said contention. On the other hand, we agree with the conclusion arrived at by the Division Bench and hold that the agreement of sale was enforceable and the trial Court has rightly granted decree which was affirmed by the Division Bench of the High Court. Looked at from any angle, the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court setting aside the order of the Single Judge and affirming the judgment and decree of the trial Court, does not warrant any interference by this Court. Consequently, the appeal fails and the same is dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of an agreement of sale executed only by the vendor and not by the purchaser.
2. Satisfaction of conditions for a decree for specific performance under Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of an Agreement of Sale Executed only by the Vendor:

The primary contention was whether an agreement of sale (Ext. 2) signed solely by the vendor, without the purchaser's signature, is valid. The defendant argued that the agreement was forged and incomplete without the purchaser's signature, making it unenforceable. The trial court, however, framed specific issues and analyzed the evidence, including expert testimony, to conclude that the signature on the agreement was genuine. The Division Bench of the High Court also compared signatures from other documents and found them consistent with the agreement of sale, affirming the trial court's findings.

The Supreme Court addressed the argument that a sale agreement must be bilateral and signed by both parties. It noted that neither of the divergent High Court decisions-one stating that an agreement signed only by the vendor is unenforceable and the other considering it a unilateral contract-addressed the real issue correctly. The Court clarified that all agreements of sale are bilateral contracts, as they involve promises from both the vendor and the purchaser. It emphasized that an agreement of sale can be valid even if signed only by the vendor, provided it evidences an oral agreement and is accepted by the purchaser. The Court found that the agreement in question, despite its format suggesting signatures from both parties, was intended to be complete upon the vendor's signature, as evidenced by subsequent endorsements and actions by both parties.

2. Satisfaction of Conditions for Decree for Specific Performance under Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963:

The Court examined whether the plaintiff had established her case for specific performance under Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. The trial court and the Division Bench of the High Court concluded that the plaintiff had performed her part by paying the earnest money and expressing her readiness to pay the balance. The defendant acknowledged the notice sent by the plaintiff. The clauses in the agreement required the vendor to execute the sale deed upon receiving the consideration, which the plaintiff was ready and willing to fulfill.

The Supreme Court affirmed that the plaintiff had met the conditions under Section 16(c) for specific performance. Despite the defendant's contention that the plaintiff's claim of being put in possession of a portion of the property was not accepted by the trial court, the Court found that the validity of the agreement and the fulfillment of other conditions justified the decree for specific performance. The Court agreed with the Division Bench's conclusion that the agreement of sale was enforceable and that the trial court rightly granted the decree, which was affirmed by the Division Bench.

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court upheld the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court, which set aside the Single Judge's order and affirmed the trial court's decree for specific performance. The appeal was dismissed, and no costs were awarded.