Blank large spaces in agreement clearly indicates it was prepared on a blank stamp paper on which the thumb impressions of the illiterate appellant taken prior to its transcription – SC
In a recent judgment, the Hon’ble Supreme Court set aside the decree of specific performance under the terms of agreement to sell as it blank large spaces in the agreement indicated it was prepared on a blank stamp paper on which thumb impressions of the appellant was taken prior to its transcription.
ABCAUS Case Law Citation:
4263 (2024) (09) abcaus.in SC
Important Case Laws relied upon:
Sukhbiri Devi v. Union of India 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1322
Mekala Sivaiah v. State of A.P 2022) 8 SCC 253
In the instant case, appeal by special leave was filed challenging the judgment of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana dismissing the appeal and confirming the judgment passed by the Trial Court.
The respondent-plaintiff had filed a suit in the trial Court seeking a decree for specific performance of an agreement to sell in respect of an agricultural plot of land.
As per the terms of the disputed agreement, the appellant-defendant had received a sum of Rs.16,00,000/- by way of earnest money on the date of the execution of the agreement with a further stipulation that the balance consideration would be paid after 16 months when both the parties would appear at the Registrar office for executing sale deed. It was further stipulated that if on the said date, the appellant-defendant failed to execute the registered sale deed then, he would become liable to return the earnest money to the tune of Rs.16,00,000/- along with penalty of equal amount.
The case of the respondent-plaintiff was that on the date appointed for execution of sale deed he reached the Office of Registrar and despite waiting for full working hours the appellant-defendant did not turn up to get the sale deed registered in his favour thereby violating the terms and conditions of the agreement. The respondent-plaintiff had also got an affidavit of attendance attested from the Sub-Registrar to show his readiness and willingness to get the sale deed executed and registered in his favour, in terms of the disputed agreement.
Before the Trial Court, the appellant-defendant stated that the disputed agreement was without consideration, result of misrepresentation, impersonation and had been prepared fraudulently by the respondent-plaintiff who was in police by colluding with the scribe and the attesting witnesses.
It was stated that the appellant-defendant was an illiterate simpleton and the respondent-plaintiff, and his brother who used to work as a commission agent (aadhatiya) at mandi used to get the thumb impressions of the customers/agriculturists including the appellant-defendant on blank stamp papers. It was specifically asserted in the written statement that the disputed agreement had been prepared by fraudulent means on one of such blank stamp papers, on which the thumb impression of the appellant-defendant had been taken by deceitful means. The appellant-defendant also denied the receipt of sale consideration.
The trial Court concluded that the transaction between the parties appeared to be a loan transaction rather than an agreement for sale and purchase of the property and held that the respondent-plaintiff was not entitled to the relief of specific performance of the agreement in respect of the suit land. However, the respondent-plaintiff was held to be entitled to recover the earnest money paid to the appellant-defendant at the time of the execution of the agreement along with interest.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court noted that the stamp papers were not purchased by the appellant-defendant and rather by another person. The agreement was typed out in Gurmukhi language. The agreement ran into three pages. The signature of the respondent-plaintiff, and the thumb impression of the appellant-defendant were marked only on the last page thereof. The first and second pages of the agreement, did not bear the signature of the respondent-plaintiff or the thumb impression of the appellant-defendant.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court further observed that on the agreement there were significant blank spaces at the foot of the first two pages below the transcription typed out on these two pages. These observations give rise to a strong inference fortifying the contention of the appellant-defendant’s counsel that the thumb impression of the appellant-defendant may have been taken on a blank stamp paper and the disputed agreement was typed thereon subsequently.
Further it was observed that the respondent-plaintiff being a Police Constable was mandatorily required to seek permission from his department before entering into an agreement to purchase property of such a high value. However, he did not seek any such permission from the department.
It was also observed that as per the disputed agreement, the appellant-defendant agreed to sell the suit land to the respondent-plaintiff at the rate which was just about half of the market rate of the land at the relevant point of time, as admitted by the respondent-plaintiff.
Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court opined that when 85% of the sale consideration was already paid to the appellant-defendant at the time of the execution of the disputed agreement and the remaining amount was hardly 15% of the total value of the suit land, it does not stand to reason that the respondent-plaintiff being a Police Constable would part with a huge sum towards a transaction to purchase land and thereafter, agree to defer the execution of the sale deed to a date almost 16 months later with the balance amount being a fraction of the total sale consideration.
Th Hon’ble Supreme Court opined that there was no rhyme or reason as to why, the respondent-plaintiff would agree to defer the execution of the sale deed to a date more than a year and four months after the execution of the disputed agreement. Thus, the disputed agreement i.e., the agreement to sell read in entirety was highly suspicious and does not inspire confidence at all.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court opined that facts of the case were sufficient to conclude that the entire case of the respondent-plaintiff regarding the execution of the disputed agreement and the alleged payment of advance cash to the appellant-defendant and the alleged appearance of the respondent-plaintiff in the office of the Sub-Registrar in the purported exercise of getting the sale deed executed in terms of the disputed agreement was nothing but a sheer piece of fraud and concoction.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the judgment and decree rendered by the trial Court, judgment passed by the First Appellate Court and the judgment rendered by the High Court suffered from perversity on the face of the record and hence, the same cannot be sustained.
Resultantly, the appeal was allowed and the impugned judgments were quashed and set aside.Â
Download Full Judgment Click Here >>
- Bulk entries passed in books of accounts cannot be said to be entirely bogus expenses – ITAT
- CIT(A) exceeded his legal brief directing verification of receipts before granting TDS
- Rectification order u/s 154 quashed by High Court, CPC directed to give Foreign Tax Credit
- Prosecution u/s 276B – Trial Court directed to consider Immunity in terms of CBDT circular
- Surrender during survey on account of low GP rate not taxable to higher rate u/s 115BBE
