The Supreme Court recently held that where a plaintiff seeks specific performance of an agreement to sell whose genuineness is clouded by suspicious circumstances, the plaintiff must first explain those circumstances satisfactorily before the evidentiary burden can shift to the defendant.

A bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice K Vinod Chandran set aside the concurrent findings of the Punjab & Haryana High Court and the First Appellate Court, which had reversed the Trial Court's dismissal of the respondent-plaintiff's suit for specific performance.

A loan transaction was disguised as a sale agreement. The appellant's signature, taken on blank paper, was used to create an agreement to sell his land to the respondent. The loan amount paid to the respondent's father was shown as earnest money, with the balance payable at execution.

A suit for specific performance was filed by the Respondent alleging that the Appellant failed to execute the sale deed, even after extending the timeline for execution by a year on the request of the Appellant.

The Trial Court had dismissed the suit after finding suspicious circumstances surrounding the document bearing the appellant-defendant's signature, not dispelled by the Respondent-plaintiff.

The First Appellate Court reversed the trial court's decision accepting the genuineness of the Appellant's thumb mark on the agreement to sell, which also extended the timeline for execution. Aggrieved by the High Court's decision to affirm the First Appellate Court decision, the defendant moved to the Supreme Court.

Allowing the appeal, the Court observed that both the High Court and First Appellate Court erred in setting aside the well-reasoned finding of the trial court, by casting the burden to prove the agreement to sell being fabricated on the Appellant-defendant, which ought to have been dispelled by the Respondent-plaintiff.

“We cannot but emphasize the reasoning of the Trial Court which was reversed by the First Appellate Court and the Second Appellate Court without application of mind. The suspicious circumstances, as pointed out in the judgment of the Trial Court dismissing the suit, were brushed aside to find that the defendant failed to prove that the document was fabricated. Though, the suspicious circumstances pointed out by the Trial Court were adverted to, it should have been properly debunked before shifting the onus of proof, on to the defendant.”, the court observed.

The court added that since the Appellant-defendant never asserted that the alleged agreement was fabricated, it was unjustified to put the onus on him to prove otherwise given that he only claimed that an agreement to sell was drawn up without his knowledge based on his forced signature on blank papers.

“It is also pertinent that the defendant did not dispute his mark on the document, his contention was that the agreement to sell having been drawn up without his knowledge on blank papers he was forced to sign and not of a fabricated document created; which contention is subtly distinct and different from a fabrication. The extension was found to have been tampered with, but brushed aside on a mere conjecture that one party would have disagreed on the date written, which led to the correction; without even an oral testimony to that effect.”, the Court said.

As a result, the appeal was allowed, restoring the trial court's decision to dismiss the suit for specific performance.

Cause Title: Bohar Singh & Anr. Versus Sardara Singh & Ors.

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 909

Click here to download judgment

Appearance:

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Arshdeep Kaur Bhullar, Adv. Mr. Dinesh Verma, Adv. Mrs. Honey Verma, Adv. Mr. Harsh Gupta, Adv. Ms. Goldy Goyal, AOR

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Anurag Chopra, Adv. Mr. Siddhant Sharma, AOR Mr. Akshay Malhotra, Adv.