Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

4. Learned Sr. Counsel Shri Mihir Thakore appearing with learned advocate Shri AB Munshi appearing for the appellants in Appeal from Order No. 200 of 2012 has stated that there is no agreement to sell entered into by and between the parties for which a specific performance of the contract can be claimed Learned Sr. Counsel Shri Mihir Thakore submitted that the property in question has been a joint property of one Balubhai Kasanji and Nanubhai Kasanji in the year 1986. Nanubhai expired and respondent No. 1 is the widow of Nanubhai. He submitted that as per the agreement of samyik the two daughters consented. Nanubhai expired in 1994 and on his death the share in the property would go as per the devolution in favour of Dhanuben, Nareshbhai and the two daughters. Learned Sr. Counsel Shri Mihir Thakore submitted that in any case the two daughters will have a share in the joint family property and the so-called agreement or sodachitti dated 18.11.2010 (mark 3/10) produced at p. 43 and 44 cannot be said to be a valid agreement inasmuch as the two daughters have not signed having interest in the property. Learned Sr. Counsel Shri Mihir Thakore further submitted that a close look at the said agreement/writing/banachitti dated 18.11.2010 would make it clear that it has been signed by only two persons and it does not bear the signature of the sisters or it is not stated that the mother Dhanuben has signed as the power-of-attorney holder of the sisters, defendants Nos. 3-4. Learned Sr. Counsel Shri Mihir Thakore also submitted that there is a sodachitti produced on record which clearly suggests that only two persons have signed (mother and son) and it does not bear the signature of the sisters who were having a share in the property.

12. Learned Sr. Counsel Shri Soparkar submitted that the submission that merely a writing or intention or desire to enter into an agreement/contract cannot be specifically enforced is one thing and on the basis of oral understanding when it has been culminated into a writing/banachitti dated 18.11.2010 is a different thing and it is an agreement/contract which can be specifically enforced. Learned Sr. Counsel Shri Soparkar submitted that as per the provisions of the Indian Contract Act, there is no specific form in which a contract is required to be made and an agreement/contract could be in any form and it has to meet with the requirements for the valid agreement/contract. He submitted that the banachitti dated 18.11.2010 fulfills all the requirements of a valid agreement/contract which could be specifically enforced.

35. A useful reference can also be made to the observations made by the Hon ble Apex Court in a judgment in the case of Aloka Bose (supra) referred to by learned Sr. Counsel Shri Soparkar wherein it has been observed, All agreements of sale are bilateral contracts as promises are made by both - the vendor agreeing to sell and the purchaser agreeing to purchase. On the other hand, the observation in S.M. Gopal Chetty (supra) that unless agreement is signed both by the vendor and purchaser, it is not a valid contract is also not sound. An agreement of sale comes into existence when the vendor agrees to sell and the purchaser agrees to purchase, for an agreed consideration on agreed terms. It can be oral. It can be by exchange of communications which may or may not be signed. It may be by a single document signed by both parties. It can also be by a document in two parts, each party signing one copy and then exchanging the signed copy as a consequence of which the purchaser has the copy signed by the vendor and a vendor has a copy signed by the purchaser... (emphasis supplied)