H. SIDDIQUI (DEAD) BY LRS. versus A. RAMALINGAM

Citation: [2011] 5 S.C.R. 587 · Decided: 04-03-2011 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P. SATHASIVAM, B.S. CHAUHAN · Disposal: Disposed off

Cited by 6 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

• 
[2011) 5 S.C.R. 587 
H. SIDDIQUI (DEAD) BY LRS. 
v. 
A. RAMALINGAM 
(Civil Appeal No. 6956 of 2004) 
MARCH 4, 2011 
[P. SATHASIVAM AND DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, JJ.] 
Specific Relief -
Appellant filed suit for specific 
A 
B 
. performance alleging that the defendant-respondent did not 
execute sale deed after his brother, power of attorney holder, 
C 
entered into an agreement for sale with the plaintiff -
Respondent specifically denied execution of power of attorney 
in favour of his brother - Trial court decreed the suit holding 
that inasmuch as photocopy of the power of attorney was 
shown to the respondent in his cross-examination and he had D 
admitted his signature, it was evident that the respondent had 
authorized his brother to alienate the suit property - High 
Court set aside the decree - On appeal, held: Trial court had 
proceeded in an unwarranted manner - Respondent merely 
admitted his signature on the photocopy of the power of E 
attorney and did not admit the contents thereof - More so, 
admissibility of a document or contents thereof may not 
necessarily lead to drawing any inference unless the contents 
thereof have some probative value - Appellant, without being 
asked by the respondent, had enhanced the consideration 
F 
amount as agreed in the agreement to sell - Conduct of the 
appellant was most improbable - Trial court erred in rejecting 
the contention of respondent, that the appellant had changed 
the terms of agreement unilaterally, without any explanation 
from the appellant - High Court also failed to realise that it 
was deciding the First Appeal and that it had to be decided G 
strictly in adherence with the provisions contained in Order XL/ 
Rule 31 of CPC and once the issue of alleged power of 
attorney was a/so raised, the Court should not have 
587 
H 
--
588 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2011] 5 S.C.R. 
A proceeded to another issue - More so, none of the courts 
below took into consideration the clause contained in the 
agreement to sell which provided that in the event of any 
default on the part of the vendors in completing the sale, the 
appellant could get refund of earnest money with liquidated 
s damages for breach .of contract - Both the courts below did 
not proceed to adjudicate upon the case strictly in accordance 
with law - Matter remitted to High Court for decision afresh. 
Evidence Act, 1872 - s. 65 - Secondary evidence relating 
C to contents of a document - Admissibility of -
Held: 
Secondary evidence relating to contents of a document is 
inadmissible, until non production of the original is accounted 
for, so as to bring it within one or other of the cases provided 
for in the section -
The secondary evidence must be 
D authenticated by foundational evidence that the alleged copy 
is in fact a true copy of the original - Mere admission of a 
document in evidence does not amo'unt to its proof -
The 
court has an obligation to decide the question of admissibility 
of a document in secondary evidence before making 
E 
endorsement thereon. 
· 
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order XL/, Rule 31 -
Guidelines for the appellate court as to how the court has to 
proceed and decide the case - Discussed - Held: It is 
mandatory for the appellate court to independently assess the 
F evidence of the parties and consider the relevant points which 
arise for adjudication and the bearing of the evidence on 
those points - Being the final court of fact, the first appellate 
court must not record mere general expression of concurrence 
with the trial court judgment rather it must give reasons for its 
G decision on each point independently to that of the trial court 
-
Thus, the entire evidence must be considered and 
discussed in detail. 
The appellant filed suit for specific performance of 
H contract against the respondent alleging that the 
H. SIDDIQUI (DEAD) BY LRS. v. A. RAMALINGAM 
589 
defendant-respondent did not. execute sale deed .after his 
A 
.. brother, power of attorney holder, entered into. an 
agreement for sale with the appellant. The respondent 
denied the execution of any power of attorney in favour 
of his brother with regard to alienation of the property .. 
The trial court decreed the suit holding that inasmuch as 
B 
photocopy of the power of attorney was shown to the 
respondent in his cross-e)Camination and h.e had 
admitted his signature, it was evident that the respondent 
had authorized his brother to alienate the suit pr:operty. 
Respondent preferred appeal b

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