S.R. Suresh and another vs Rudrappa Kabbur and another. Regular Second Appeal 649/2013 decided on 23 October 2020.
Judgment Link: http://judgmenthck.kar.nic.in/judgmentsdsp/bitstream/123456789/348682/1/RFA649-13-23-10-2020.pdf
Relevant paragraphs: 19, 20 & 21.…When the defendants have denied the very execution of the agreement, receipt of the sale advance amount and the signatures, it is the burden on the plaintiffs to prove the same and in the absence of proof, the suit filed by the plaintiffs has been rightly dismissed by the Trial Court. Our view is fortified by the dictum of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Thiruvengada Pillai vs. Navaneethamal reported in AIR 2008 SC 1541. Judgment in N.T. Vijayakumar and others vs. The Allahabad Bank, Nehru Road Branch, Shimoga, reported in 1999(2) Kar. L.J. 490, Shivakumar and others vs. Sharanabasappa and others reported in 2020 SCC Online SC 385, relied on.
22. The plaintiffs have failed to prove the very execution of the document by the defendants and receipt of advance amount of Rs.35.00 lakhs. In the absence of the same, the suit filed by the plaintiffs for the relief of specific performance is not maintainable. Though learned counsel for the appellants contended that the plaintiffs were always ready and willing to perform their part of the contract as contemplated under Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, the same cannot be accepted. Admittedly, the very agreement itself is not proved. Therefore, the question of readiness and willingness would not arise. Appeal dismissed.
Compiled by S. Basavaraj, Advocate, Daksha Legal.
Daksha Legal 