Plaintiff Must Explain Suspicious Sale Agreement Before Seeking Specific Performance

Initial burden remains on the plaintiff

The Supreme Court has held that a plaintiff cannot obtain specific performance of an agreement to sell without first addressing circumstances that cast serious doubt on the document’s true nature. Admission of a signature does not automatically prove that the signed document embodies the transaction asserted by the plaintiff.

The defendant alleged that his signature had been taken on blank paper in connection with a loan and later used to create a sale agreement, with the loan amount shown as earnest money. The trial court dismissed the suit, while the appellate courts reversed that conclusion.

Suspicion must be satisfactorily removed

The Supreme Court set aside the concurrent appellate findings. It emphasised that the plaintiff, who relies on the agreement and seeks the discretionary remedy of specific performance, must first explain the suspicious features and prove the transaction. Only after that foundational burden is discharged can an evidentiary burden meaningfully shift to the defendant.