The Supreme Court has held that when a person files a suit seeking specific performance of an agreement to sell, they must first explain any suspicious circumstances surrounding the agreement. Only after those doubts are cleared can the burden shift to the other party.

A bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and K Vinod Chandran made the observation while allowing an appeal against the Punjab & Haryana High Court judgment.

The dispute was over an alleged agreement to sell a piece of land. The defendant claimed that there was actually a loan transaction between the parties and that his signature had been taken on blank papers. He alleged that those papers were later used to prepare an agreement to sell his land.

The amount given as a loan to the defendant's father was allegedly shown as the earnest money under the sale agreement, with the remaining amount to be paid when the sale deed was executed.

The plaintiff later filed a suit for specific performance, claiming that the defendant had failed to execute the sale deed even after the deadline was extended by one year.

The Trial Court dismissed the suit after finding several suspicious circumstances surrounding the agreement. It held that the plaintiff had failed to properly explain those circumstances.

However, the First Appellate Court reversed the decision and accepted the genuineness of the defendant's thumb impression on the agreement. The Punjab & Haryana High Court later upheld that decision.

The defendant then approached the Supreme Court.

Allowing the appeal, the Supreme Court said the lower courts had wrongly placed the burden on the defendant to prove that the agreement was fabricated.

The Court said that the plaintiff should have first addressed the suspicious circumstances pointed out by the Trial Court before asking the defendant to disprove the agreement.

The bench observed that the defendant had never claimed that the document was completely fabricated. His case was that he had been forced to sign blank papers and that the agreement was later prepared without his knowledge.

The Court also noted that the extension of the agreement appeared to have been tampered with. However, the lower courts had brushed aside the issue without any supporting oral evidence.

The Supreme Court therefore restored the Trial Court's decision dismissing the suit for specific performance.

Case: Bohar Singh & Anr. v. Sardara Singh & Ors.