Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: consensus ad idem in Pushpa Bai vs Dr. Williams And Ors. on 29 March, 2001Matching Fragments
42. The contention that Ex. A. 1 need not be signed by the plaintiff and that mere absence of signature will not disable the plaintiff to get the agreement enforced cannot be sustained. Ex. A. 1 contract to sell, entered into is concluded by consensus ad idem which consensus ad idem, is signified by the parties affixing their respective signature. In the absence of such consensus ad idem by the plaintiff, in the absence of his signature or any other indication, Ex. A. 1 is not enforceable.
43. It is for the plaintiff to prove that there is a valid agreement to sell and purchase or there is a concluded contract between the plaintiff and the first defendant. The trial court had overlooked the facts that Ex. A. 1 had not been signed by the palintiff. The plaintiffs failure to affix his thumb impression, his signature indicate that he had accepted the terms of the stipulations and in the absence of his signature the plaintiff cannot establish a contract or he could validly enforce such a contract by seeking specific performance.
44. A contract for sale of immovable property is a contract that sale of such property shall take place on terms settled between the parties. It may be that a contract of sale of immovable property need not be in writing. Yet, even in respect of such oral agreement the burden is on the party to prove that there is consensus ad idem between the parties for a concluded oral agreement of sale of immovable property. A contract to sell in the present case, if at all is binding on the first defendant alone and not on the other defendants namely defendants 3 to 5 who are not parties to the sale agreement. Further Ex. A. 1 proceeds as if the first defendant had agreed to convey the entire property including the land which would show that the plaintiffs intention and also taking advantage of the possession of the property in the hands of the plaintiffs wife, Ex. A. 1 had been created and signature of the first defendant had been secured on some stamp papers, which agreement is neither true nor mutual.