SYED BASHEER AHMEDversusM/S TINNI LABORATORIES PRIVATE LIMITED & ANR.

          [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 respondent 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 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


1    (1977) 1 SCC 379
1490                                                         [2025] 8 S.C.R.

                         Supreme Court Reports


     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 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 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
[2025] 8 S.C.R.                                                         1491

                         Syed Basheer Ahmed v.
              M/s Tinni Laboratories Private Limited & Anr.

     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.
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 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.
1492                                                     [2025] 8 S.C.R.

                            Supreme Court Reports


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.


     Result of the case: Appeal rejected.




     †
         Headnotes prepared by: Ankit Gyan