This appeal challenges the judgment of the High Court of Kerala, which modified the Trial Court's decree in a suit for specific performance. The High Court allowed the plaintiff to recover only Rs. 3,00,000/- with 12% interest from the defendant, reducing the amount from Rs. 18,00,000/-. The plaintiff had initially sought specific performance of an agreement to sell property, claiming an advance payment of Rs. 18,00,000/-. The defendant denied the transaction, alleging fraud and forgery. The Trial Court found the agreement valid but awarded a refund instead of specific performance. The High Court modified this to Rs. 3,00,000/-, disputing the additional payment of Rs. 15,00,000/-. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, dismissing the appeal.

Introduction

This appeal questions the judgment and decree of the High Court of Kerala, which modified the Trial Court's decree in a suit for specific performance.

Background of the Case

• Agreement Details: The plaintiff and defendant entered into an agreement for the sale of property on 26.03.1998 for Rs. 30,00,000/-, with an advance of Rs. 3,00,000/- paid by the plaintiff.
• Additional Payment: The plaintiff claimed an additional payment of Rs. 15,00,000/- to clear the defendant's liabilities, extending the agreement period by one year.
• Plaintiff's Claim: The plaintiff was ready to pay the balance but the defendant did not execute the sale deed, leading to the suit for specific performance or alternatively, a refund of Rs. 18,00,000/- with interest.

Defendant's Defense

• Denial of Agreement: The defendant denied the agreement, claiming forgery and asserting the property's value was much higher.
• Allegations of Fraud: The defendant alleged financial transactions with one K.K. Vijayadharan Pillai, who misused blank signed papers to create a false agreement.

Trial Court Proceedings

• Evidence: The plaintiff presented three witnesses and documents, while the defendant examined two witnesses.
• Findings: The Trial Court found the agreement genuine but denied specific performance, ordering a refund of Rs. 18,00,000/- with 12% interest.

High Court Proceedings

• Appeals: The defendant appealed against the refund order, and another appeal was filed by a claimant over the property.
• High Court Judgment: The High Court modified the refund to Rs. 3,00,000/- with interest, rejecting the additional payment of Rs. 15,00,000/- as unproven.

Supreme Court Analysis

• Plaintiff's Appeal: The plaintiff appealed to the Supreme Court regarding the refund amount.
• Evidence Review: The Supreme Court reviewed the evidence and upheld the High Court's finding that only the initial payment of Rs. 3,00,000/- was proven.
• Conclusion: The appeal was dismissed, confirming the High Court's judgment.

Final Decision

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the High Court's decision that the plaintiff could recover only Rs. 3,00,000/- with interest from the defendant.

Costs

Each party was ordered to bear their own costs.