Summary
The courts below had refused specific performance but, treating the agreement to sell as a loan transaction, decreed refund of Rs 16 lakh. The Supreme Court interfered under Article 136 because those concurrent findings ignored vital circumstances showing the agreement itself was a fabrication: the defendant's thumb impression on a blank stamp paper, a price about half the market rate, near-full payment in cash with a 16-month deferral, and no tender of the balance. The money decree was set aside.
Issues
- Whether the Supreme Court may interfere under Article 136 with concurrent findings of fact upholding a money decree founded on a disputed agreement to sell.
- Whether the plaintiff proved execution of the agreement to sell and payment of Rs 16,00,000 as earnest money, or alternatively as a loan.
Provisions considered
- Article 136, Constitution of IndiaConcurrent findings of fact are not to be disturbed unless they are perverse or ignore vital evidence. The Court found that the courts below had glossed over decisive circumstances in the record, making their findings perverse, and so interfered. (¶¶ 22, 23, 24, 37, 38)
Held
- Interference with concurrent findings of fact under Article 136 is sparing, but is justified where the findings are perverse, rest on no evidence or on a misreading of evidence, or overlook vital material. (¶¶ 22, 23, 24)
- The stamp papers were bought by the plaintiff's brother, not the defendant. The three-page agreement carried the parties' marks only on the last page, with large blank spaces on the first two, which strongly suggested that the illiterate defendant's thumb impression had been taken on a blank stamp paper and the text typed in afterwards. (¶¶ 27, 32)
- The surrounding circumstances made the agreement highly suspicious. The plaintiff, a police head constable, took no departmental permission for a high-value purchase, did not show the cash in his tax returns, and agreed to a price about half the admitted market rate. He paid most of the consideration in cash yet deferred the sale deed by about 16 months, never approached the defendant in that period, never offered the balance, and did not even claim to have carried it to the Sub-Registrar's office. (¶¶ 28, 29, 31, 34, 35)
- The trial court's treatment of the amount as a loan had no foundation: no suggestion of a loan was put to the defendant in cross-examination, and nothing showed a relationship close enough for an unsecured cash loan of that size. (¶¶ 33, 35)
- The plaintiff's whole case on execution of the agreement, the cash payment and his attendance at the registry was a concoction. The courts below ignored these vital aspects, so their judgments were perverse on the face of the record and could not stand. (¶¶ 32, 36, 37, 38)
Result
Appeal allowed; the judgments of the trial court, first appellate court and High Court, including the decree for refund of Rs 16,00,000 with interest, set aside; decree to be drawn accordingly; no order as to costs.