Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

The learned Senior Counsel also relied on the evidence led by both, the plaintiffs and the defendant in support of his submission to show the intention of the parties. He submitted that the MOU (Exhibit `O'), which is admittedly an unsigned document cannot be said to constitute a concluded contract and as such a specifically enforceable contract. He submitted that admittedly, no consideration was paid by the plaintiffs to the defendant. He submitted that even the balance of convenience and hardships are clearly in favour of the defendant, inasmuch as, subsequent thereto, the plaintiffs purchased a flat for their daughter. He submitted that the defendant and app.564.15.doc her husband are senior citizens, above 70 years of age. According to the learned Senior Counsel, considering the harsh winters in Canada, the defendant has decided to stay in Mumbai in the suit flat, which is the only residence she has. He accordingly submitted that the appeal be dismissed with costs in favour of the defendant. Mr. Kodianthara relied on several judgments in support of his submission; Ganesh Shet vs. Dr. C.S.G.K Setty & Ors.5; Kollipara Sriramulu vs. T. Aswathanarayana (supra); Rickmers Verwaltung GMBH vs. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. 6; Kalpataru Properties Pvt. Ltd. vs. Majithia Nagar Co-operative Housing Society Ltd.7 and K. Narendra vs. Riviera Apartments' (P) Ltd.8.