Mere Inadequacy Of Consideration Or Illiteracy Does Not Vitiate Specific Performance Unless Exploitation Is Proved: Madras High Court

"The period was a term of the contract to which the defendant himself agreed; a stipulation generous to the purchaser cannot, in the defendant's hands, be turned into a ground for avoiding the contract." Madras High Court, in a significant ruling, held that a registered agreement of sale cannot be invalidated on grounds of inadequate consideration or the vendor's illiteracy unless clear exploitation or coercion is established, while affirming concurrent decrees for specific performance.

A bench of Dr. Justice A.D. Maria Clete observed that mere inadequacy of consideration is not a ground to refuse specific performance under Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963.

The case arose from a 1998 registered agreement where the defendant agreed to sell agricultural land for Rs. 1,50,000, having received Rs. 1,25,000 as advance. Upon the defendant's failure to execute the sale deed within the stipulated one-year period, the plaintiff instituted a suit for specific performance. The trial court decreed the suit, a decision subsequently affirmed by the first appellate court, prompting the defendant to file the second appeal alongside a related civil revision petition challenging execution proceedings.

The primary questions before the court were whether the plaintiff proved continuous readiness and willingness under Section 16 of the Specific Relief Act, and whether the agreement was voidable due to alleged unfair advantage, inadequate pricing, or the vendor's illiteracy.

Court Rejects Plea Of Forgery Based On Expert Evidence

The court noted that the registered agreement of sale carried a strong presumption of regularity, which was duly corroborated by independent attesting witnesses and handwriting experts. The bench pointed out that the defendant had voluntarily furnished his specimen signatures in open court for forensic comparison.

"Expert opinion under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act is admissible whether the expert is in government service or in private practice; what matters is the expert's competence and the cogency of the reasons given."

The court emphasized that having taken the chance of an expert examination to which he consented, the defendant could not later impeach the procedure. The concurrent findings regarding the execution of the agreement were held to be unperverted and legally sound.

Readiness And Willingness Established By Plaintiff's Conduct

Addressing the statutory requirements under Section 16(c) of the Act, the court evaluated the financial capacity and conduct of the plaintiff. Having paid the substantial part of the consideration upfront, the plaintiff had issued a formal legal notice and waited at the Sub-Registrar's office on the appointed date.

"The plaintiff pleaded specifically that he approached the defendant on several occasions, and the defendant did not specifically traverse those averments."

The court dismissed the contention that a one-year period to pay the remaining balance of Rs. 25,000 was unrealistic or exploitative. It ruled that a stipulation generous to the purchaser cannot be turned into a shield by a defaulting vendor.

Inadequacy Of Consideration Not A Ground To Deny Relief

The court examined the applicability of Section 20 of the unamended Specific Relief Act regarding unfair advantage. It reiterated that mere inadequacy of consideration, in the absence of established fraud, misrepresentation, or proved exploitation of illiteracy, does not warrant the denial of specific performance.

"The burden of establishing unfairness lay on the party asserting it, and the defendant did not discharge it by producing any evidence of market value or guideline registers."

The bench also rejected the appellant's attempt to introduce subsequent sale deeds as additional evidence under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC, noting that they constituted an impermissible shift from the original defense of total forgery to a plea of coercion.

Execution Proceedings And Locus Standi Upheld

Dealing with the connected Civil Revision Petition arising from execution, the court upheld the executing court's order directing delivery of possession. It held that subsequent purchasers and power agents can properly maintain execution applications alongside the decree-holder under Order 21 Rule 16 and Section 146 of the CPC.

"Delivery of the decree-holder's half share, or joint possession to the extent decreed, is a matter for the mode of delivery and does not render the decree a nullity."

The court concluded that the executing court committed no jurisdictional error in granting delivery with police aid, particularly as no subsisting stay order was placed on record during the relevant period.

The Second Appeal and the Civil Revision Petition were accordingly dismissed, confirming the concurrent judgments and decrees granting specific performance to the plaintiff.

Date of Decision: 30 July 2026