LexSYED BASHEER AHMED versus M/S TINNI LABORATORIES PRIVATE LIMITED & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2025] 8 S.C.R. 1487 : 2025 INSC 1030 Syed Basheer Ahmed v. M/s Tinni Laboratories Private Limited & Anr. (Civil Appeal No. 11080 of 2014) 21 August 2025 [Prashant Kumar Mishra and K. Vinod Chandran, JJ.] Issue for Consideration A suit for specific performance was decreed by the trial court, which was dismissed by the High Court in appeal, reversing the judgment and decree. Whether the High Court erred in reversing the findings and the judgment and decree passed by the trial court. Headnotes† Suit – Suit for specific performance – A suit was filed by the plaintiff, the appellant herein, alleging that an agreement was entered into with the 1st defendant, the 2nd respondent herein, for purchase of two properties which are more fully described as Item No.1 and Item No.2 – The trial court based on the evidence, found that the plaintiff was always ready and willing to pay the balance consideration – Trial Court decreed the suit – The High Court, however, on a reading of the basic document produced, the sale agreement, found that there is clear alteration in so far as the recitals with respect to Item No.2, which was also written in a different ink – High Court found material alteration and reversed the decree of the trial court – Correctness: Held: The 1st defendant did not enter the box to give evidence but filed a written statement pointing out the material alteration – Hence, it cannot be said that there was no plea regarding material alteration – The agreement produced at Annexure-1 speaks first of an extent of 1.40 acres, presumably Item No.1 with total consideration fixed at Rs.56,000/- @ Rs.40,000/- per acre – Then the agreement speaks of Item No.2 with an extent of 1 acre as having been included in the agreement to sell – However, the Schedule shows a total extent of 2.40 acres from which 50 cents is sold – No reliance can be placed on such an agreement with different extents in the recitals and the schedule, to grant specific 1488 [2025] 8 S.C.R. Supreme Court Reports performance – Further, the readiness and willingness established is by account statement of the plaintiff showing credit of Rs.70,500/- – If both items of property are included in the sale agreement, then the total consideration would be Rs. 96,000/- @ Rs.40,000/- per acre – Deducting the advance the balance sale consideration will be Rs.95,000/- – The claim of readiness and willingness of the plaintiff hence falls flat – Besides, section 73 of the Evidence Act, 1872 has any no application and in finding material alteration the courts are not obliged to always refer it to an expert; especially when it is clearly discernible on a mere perusal of the document, that too written in a different ink – No reason to interfere with the judgment of the High Court. [Paras 7, 8, 9, 10] Case Law Cited Seth Loonkaran Sethiya v. Mr. Ivan E. John and Ors. [1977] 1 SCR 853 : [1977] 1 SCC 379 – referred to. List of Acts Specific Relief Act, 1963; Evidence Act, 1872. List of Keywords Suit; Specific performance of contract; Readiness and willingness to pay balance; Material alteration in agreement; Agreement to purchase properties; Sale agreement; Section 73 of Evidence Act, 1872; Tainted agreement. Case Arising From CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 11080 of 2014 From the Judgment and Order dated 13.09.2012 of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in AS No. 866 of 1993. Appearances for Parties Advs. for the Appellant: G. Sivabalamurugan, V. Sridhar Reddy, V. N. Raghupathy. Advs. for the Respondents: D Ramakrishna Reddy, Mrs. D. Bharathi Reddy, Nishant Sharma, Mrs. D Tejaswi Reddy, Ms. Adviteeya, T Velmurugan, P Raja. [2025] 8 S.C.R. 1489 Syed Basheer Ahmed v. M/s Tinni Laboratories Private Limited & Anr. Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court Order 1. A suit for specific performance was decreed by the trial court, which was dismissed by the High Court in appeal, reversing the judgment and decree. The suit was filed by the plaintiff, the appellant herein, alleging that an agreement was entered into with the 1st defendant, the 2nd respondent herein, for purchase of two properties which are more fully described as Item No.1 and Item No.2. Admittedly, Item No.2 belonged to a third party and Item No.1 was owned by the 2nd respondent. The 2nd respondent made the plaintiff believe that he was in possession of Item No.2 property which he had agreed to purchase from its real owner. The 1st respond
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.