CHENNADI JALAPATHI REDDY versus BADDAM PRATAPA REDDY (DEAD) THR LRS. & ANR.

Citation: [2019] 11 S.C.R. 739 · Decided: 27-08-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: N.V. RAMANA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
739
CHENNADI JALAPATHI REDDY
v.
BADDAM PRATAPA REDDY (DEAD) THR LRS. & ANR.
(Civil Appeal Nos.7818-7819 of 2009)
AUGUST 27, 2019
[N. V. RAMANA, MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR AND
AJAY RASTOGI, JJ.]
Suit – Expert Evidence – Evaluation of – Appellant filed suit
for specific performance in respect of the agreement of sale
pertaining to the suit schedule house – As per the appellant, after
execution of the agreement of sale in his favour, the first defendant-
first respondent (now deceased) did not execute the sale deed and
rather along with his brother sold their respective shares to the
second defendant-second respondent – Trial Court decreed the suit
– Judgment reversed by the High Court – On appeal, held: Evidence
of PWs-2, 3 (attesting witnesses) fully support the case of the
appellant – High Court not justified in rejecting their evidence on
mere assumptions and wrong reasons – It mainly relied upon the
opinion of the handwriting expert, who opined that the signature of
the first respondent on the agreement of sale, Ext.A-1 did not tally
with his admitted signatures – Court must be cautious while
evaluating expert evidence, which is a weak type of evidence and
not substantive in nature – Mere expert evidence as to a fact is not
regarded as conclusive proof of it and the Court may seek
independent and reliable corroboration in the facts of a given case
– Evidence of DW-3 (brother of the first respondent) belies the
allegation of the first respondent that the signature found on Ext.A-
1 is forged – DW-3 admitted that he could identify the signature of
his elder brother, the first respondent– Merely because appellant’s
signature was not present on Ext.A-1, this would not ipso facto nullify
the agreement altogether – Ext.A-2, the receipt evidencing the
payment of earnest money in pursuance of Ext.A-1, bears the
signature of the first respondent on the revenue stamps affixed
thereon– No material brought on record to show that he did not
receive the amount under Ext.A-2– Plaintiff was ready and willing
to perform his part of the contract – Judgment of the High Court
   [2019] 11 S.C.R. 739
739
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
740
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 11 S.C.R.
set aside, while that of Trial Court stands restored– Evidence Act,
1872 – ss.45, 47– Specific Relief Act, 1963– s.16(c) – Limitation
Act, 1963 – Art.54 of the Schedule– Code of Civil Procedure, 1908–
Appendix A, Forms 47 & 48.
Evidence Act, 1872 – Explanation to s.47 – Opinion of person
acquainted with the handwriting of another – Relevance of –
Discussed.
Specific Relief Act, 1963 – s.16(c) – Held: Filing of suit for
specific performance of an agreement of sale is governed by s.16(c)
r/w Art. 54 of the Schedule of the 1963 Act – Forms 47 & 48 of
Appendix A of CPC prescribe the format of the plaint for such a
suit – Thus, a plaint which seeks the relief of specific performance
of an agreement/contract must comply with all these requirements –
Limitation Act, 1963 – Art.54 of the Schedule – Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908 – Appendix A, Forms 47 & 48.
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The High Court mainly relied upon the opinion
evidence of DW-2, the handwriting expert, who opined that the
signature of the first defendant on the agreement of sale Ext.A-1
did not tally with his admitted signatures. The Court must be
cautious while evaluating expert evidence, which is a weak type
of evidence and not substantive in nature. It may not be safe to
solely rely upon such evidence, and the Court may seek
independent and reliable corroboration in the facts of a given
case. Generally, mere expert evidence as to a fact is not regarded
as conclusive proof of it. Ext. A-1 is the agreement of sale entered
into by the plaintiff and the first defendant. Ext. A-2 is the receipt
evidencing the payment of earnest money of Rs. 61,200/- in
pursuance of this agreement of sale. The receipt bears the
signature of the first defendant on the revenue stamps affixed
thereon. Ext. A-2 was not sent for obtaining expert opinion. No
reliable material was brought on record that the first defendant
has not received the amount under Ext. A-2. In the absence of
any challenge to the first defendant’s signature on Ext. A-2, and
in the absence of any reliable material produced by the first
defendant to deny the receipt of such earnest money, the High
Court should have relied upon this receipt. In fact, the High Court
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
741
has not considered Ext. A-2 in its entire judgment. As a matte

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.