Syed Basheer Ahmed vs M/S Tinni Laboratories Pvt. Ltd

2025 INSC 1030 Reportable

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

Civil Appeal No.11080 of 2014

Syed Basheer Ahmed …Appellant Versus

M/s. Tinni Laboratories Private Limited & Anr.

…Respondents

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 Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by KAPIL TANDON Date: 2025.08.23 12:42:03 IST Reason:

agreed to purchase from its real owner. The 1st respondent

Page 1 of 7 Civil Appeal No.11080 of 2014 who was the 2nd defendant in the suit later purchased both Item

No.1 and 2 and made valuable constructions thereon. The trial

court based on the evidence, found that the plaintiff was always

ready and willing to pay the balance consideration and time

was never the essence of contract since it stood extended from

time to time till 12.02.1985. The trial court rejected the

contention raised regarding material alteration in the

agreement and decreed the suit.

2. 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. Relying on Seth

Loonkaran Sethiya v. Mr. Ivan E. John and Ors.1, the High

Court found material alteration and reversed the decree of the

trial court.

3. Mr. G. Sivabalamurugan, learned counsel appearing for

the appellant argued that on 15.07.1984, an agreement was

entered into for sale of 2.40 acres, for a total sale consideration

of Rs.56,000/- and an advance of Rs.1,000/- was paid. The

1 (1977) 1 SCC 379

Page 2 of 7 Civil Appeal No.11080 of 2014 agreement referred to both Item Nos.1 and 2, the former

belonging to the 1st defendant and the later belonging to the

second. The period within which the sale deed was to be

executed was three months. The plaintiff was always ready and

willing to pay the balance sale consideration and on

11.10.1984, within the three month period, a notice was issued

to the 1st defendant, expressing the readiness and willingness

to pay the balance consideration and requiring the execution

of the sale deed. The 1st defendant replied by a letter dated

22.01.1985, demanding the balance amount with 18% interest.

On 11.02.1985, the 1st defendant sold Item No.2 to 2nd

defendant and later on, a demand draft of Rs.1,000/- was sent,

purportedly in refund of the advance which was returned by

the plaintiff. Subsequently, on 09.03.1985 again, 1st defendant

sold Item No.1 to 2nd defendant, before which the suit for

specific performance was fled on 01.03.1985.

4. The learned counsel read over to us the judgment of the

trial court and argued that the High Court erred in reversing

the findings and the judgment and decree passed by the trial

court. It is pointed out that there was clear evidence regarding

Page 3 of 7 Civil Appeal No.11080 of 2014 the agreement and having established the readiness and

willingness, the trial court had rightly passed the decree,

especially when there was no evidence led on behalf of the 1st

defendant. The alteration was never urged before the trial

court by the 1st defendant nor was there any deposition to that

extent. An alteration could not have been found by the High

Court merely on looking at the documents and it should have

been properly analyzed with an expert as provided under

Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

5. Mr. D. Ramakrishna Reddy learned counsel for the

respondents, on the other hand points out that the 2nd

defendant was always in possession of the property. The

interpolation found by the High Court was on a mere reading

of the documents, which is permissible, and Section 73 has no

application. The High Court observed that the interpolation is

so blatant, the agreement having been written in two different

inks, there is no cause for interference to the judgment of the

High Court.

6. Trite is the principle that the plaintiff should establish

his case before the defendant is called upon to offer his

Page 4 of 7 Civil Appeal No.11080 of 2014 defense by disproving the case of the plaintiff and rebutting

any presumption that could have been drawn from the

circumstances. The relief of specific performance was sought

for, based on the agreement produced by the plaintiff himself.

The High Court has looked at the agreement to find material

alteration which according to the High Court is clearly

discernible; especially when two inks were used in the

agreement. The details of Item No.2 as also the alleged

agreement to sell that plot, was found to be clearly

interpolated in the agreement. The agreement, hence, was

found to be tainted and in those circumstances, the suit had no

legs to stand.

7. True, the 1st defendant did not enter the box to give

evidence but filed a written statement pointing out the material

alteration. The 2nd defendant, who stepped into the shoes of the

1st defendant entered the box and gave evidence. Hence, it

cannot be said that there was no plea regarding material

alteration, which was found by the High Court on a mere

perusal of the document; on which document, the entire suit

was based on.

Page 5 of 7 Civil Appeal No.11080 of 2014

8. In this context we cannot but notice that the agreement,

a translated copy, 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

1acre 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 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.

9. Pertinent is also the fact that the plaintiff before the trial

court gave up his claim for conveyance of the 2nd item and

pressed only the first part of the agreement clearly putting to

Page 6 of 7 Civil Appeal No.11080 of 2014 peril his prayer for specific performance based on the tainted

agreement. We are not convinced that Section 73 has any

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. Even otherwise, as found by us, the

plaint fails.

10. We find absolutely no reason to interfere with the

judgment of the High Court and reject the appeal. No costs.

11. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

……..……….……………………. J.

(PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA)

………………………………………J. (K. VINOD CHANDRAN)

New Delhi;

August 21, 2025.

Page 7 of 7 Civil Appeal No.11080 of 2014