Agreement to Sell in Doubt? The Supreme Court Puts the Burden on the Buyer

If you sue to enforce an agreement to sell and the agreement itself looks doubtful, you have to explain those doubts first. The seller does not have to prove the paper was forged. That is what the Supreme Court held in Bohar Singh & Anr. v. Sardara Singh & Ors., 2026 INSC 961, decided on 31 August 2026. The Court threw out a buyer’s suit that two higher courts had decreed. It restored the trial court’s dismissal and ordered the money paid to be refunded with interest.

Disputes over agreements to sell are a familiar part of civil litigation in Delhi, and this order matters to buyers and sellers alike. Here is what the Court said and what it means in practice.

What happened in this case

The agreement was signed on 16 August 1984 for 4 acres of land at Rs 12,000 an acre. The buyers paid Rs 27,300 as earnest money (bayana, बयाना). The balance was due within two years. The buyers said the seller later asked for more time, and the date was extended to 19 June 1987. They filed their suit for specific performance in 1987.

The seller’s case was simple. He said there was no sale at all. It was a loan from the buyers’ father, and he had signed papers at the time of the loan. He produced a receipt dated 27 May 1987 for Rs 27,875, signed by the buyers’ father, which he said showed the loan was repaid. The father accepted his signature on the receipt but said he had received only Rs 875.

Why the trial court did not believe the agreement

The trial court dismissed the suit. It found a string of problems, and the Supreme Court agreed with every one:

• The stamp paper came first. The buyer said the deal was struck about a fortnight before 16 August 1984. But the stamp paper had been bought on 6 July 1984, well before any deal.
• Possession never moved. The agreement said possession was handed over when the earnest money was paid. Everyone accepted that the seller stayed in possession.
• The extended date was tampered with. The buyers said the seller wanted more time. The court found that odd, because the seller only had to sign a sale deed, not raise money.
• The witness was from another village.
• The receipt fitted the loan story. Days before the extended deadline, the buyers’ father signed a receipt for Rs 27,875 received from the seller, with two witnesses. That is more than the Rs 20,700 still due on the price, and no good reason was given for taking it while a sale was pending.
• Readiness was not proved. One buyer said he went to the Sub-Registrar’s office on the last date with Rs 56,000, far more than was due. The document produced showed another of the plaintiffs there, and he never gave evidence. Nothing showed the buyers actually had the balance money.

The first appellate court and the High Court reversed this. They said the seller had not proved the agreement was fabricated, and that the extension carried the seller’s thumb impression.

What the Supreme Court held

The Supreme Court said the appeal courts had reversed the trial court “without application of mind”. They had brushed the suspicious circumstances aside. Those circumstances, the Court said, “should have been properly debunked before shifting the onus of proof, on to the defendant”.

The Court made a second, sharper point. The seller never denied his mark on the paper. His case was that he had been made to sign blank papers, and the agreement was written up later without his knowledge. The Court called that “subtly distinct and different from a fabrication”. So the appeal courts asked the wrong question. They asked whether the seller had proved forgery. They should have asked whether the buyers had explained why the agreement looked so doubtful.

Because the case had run for almost 40 years, the Court did not simply send the buyers away. It ordered the money they had paid or deposited to be refunded with 12.5% simple interest a year, from the dates it was paid. If it is not paid, the amount becomes a charge on the land.

Is this new law?

No, and that is why it matters. The order applies rules that already govern every civil suit:

• Burden of proof. Whoever asks a court for judgment on facts they assert must prove those facts. The burden lies on the party who would lose if no evidence were given at all. These are sections 104 and 105 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, which replaced sections 101 and 102 of the Indian Evidence Act from 1 July 2024. In a specific performance suit, that party is the buyer.
• Specific performance is no longer discretionary, but it is not automatic. Since the 2018 amendment, section 10 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 says specific performance “shall be enforced”. But this is subject to section 16. Under section 16(c), a buyer who fails to prove that he has always been ready and willing to perform his part gets nothing.

The order is marked non-reportable, so it does not lay down a new rule. It is a firm reminder to appeal courts not to treat a signed paper as the end of the inquiry.

What it means if you are the buyer

When an agreement to sell is challenged, the dispute often turns on the same kinds of details the trial court relied on here. If you are buying, protect yourself at the start:

1. Make the paper match the facts. Do not write “possession handed over” if it is not. Buy the stamp paper close to the signing date.
2. Never alter a date by hand without a record. Put any extension in a fresh signed letter or supplementary agreement, with witnesses.
3. Pay through the bank. A cheque or bank transfer for the earnest money is far harder to dispute than cash.
4. Keep proof that you had the balance. Bank statements, a loan sanction letter or a demand draft made out for the balance price show readiness. Section 16(c) needs proof, not just a statement in the plaint.
5. Act on the due date. Send a written notice calling on the seller to execute the sale deed, and attend the Sub-Registrar’s office with proof of funds. Whoever goes should be ready to say so in court.
6. Register the agreement if you take possession. Since 2001, an agreement to sell must be registered to support a part-performance defence under section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act (section 17(1A) of the Registration Act, 1908). And an agreement to sell does not by itself make you the owner; only a registered sale deed does.
7. Sue in time, and ask for your money back in the alternative. The limit for a specific performance suit is three years from the date fixed for performance, or, if no date was fixed, from when you learn the seller has refused (Article 54, Limitation Act, 1963). Under section 22 of the Specific Relief Act, ask in the plaint for refund of your earnest money if specific performance is refused. The court can allow you to add this claim later, but it will not grant it unless it is asked for.

What it means if you are the seller

• Plead exactly what happened. “This is forged” and “I signed blank papers for a loan” are different defences. Here the difference decided the case. Say which one is true and stick to it.
• Bring the documents behind your story. The receipt for Rs 27,875 carried real weight here because it was clear, admitted and dated just before the deadline.
• Point to the gaps. Stamp paper dates, possession, corrections, the witnesses and the buyer’s money trail are all fair ground in cross-examination. Once real doubts are on record, the buyer has to answer them first.

How I approach these cases

When an agreement to sell comes to me, I start with the paper itself, before the parties’ stories. I check the stamp paper endorsement against the signing date, every correction and who initialled it, what the agreement says about possession and payment, and the bank trail for each payment. On the buyer’s side I check, before filing, whether the evidence of readiness and willingness will hold up. This order shows that the trial court looks at all of it.

If you are dealing with a disputed agreement to sell and need a property lawyer in Delhi, the team at Manuja Law Partners handles these suits.

Sources

• India Code: Section 104, Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023
• India Code: Section 105, Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023
• India Code: Section 10, Specific Relief Act, 1963
• India Code: Section 16, Specific Relief Act, 1963
• India Code: Section 22, Specific Relief Act, 1963
• India Code: Section 53A, Transfer of Property Act, 1882
• India Code: Section 17, Registration Act, 1908
• India Code: Article 54, Schedule, Limitation Act, 1963
• Order: Bohar Singh v. Sardara Singh, 2026 INSC 961 (full text)
• LiveLaw: Plaintiff in specific performance suit must first debunk suspicious circumstances (2026 LiveLaw (SC) 909)
• LawArticle: Suspicious sale agreement: Supreme Court on specific performance