Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: uncertain contract in Gunvantlal Ratanchand vs Rameshbhai P. Patel on 13 September, 2000Matching Fragments
26. Shri Nanavati further contended that the trial Court had fallen in error in holding that the supplementary agreements are in the nature of void agreements and against public policy and the provisions of law and such uncertain contracts could not be enforced. His contention has been that time for execution of the sale deed was extended because of prohibition contained in Gujarat Vacant Land Urban Areas Prohibition of Alienation Act, 1972 and since this Act ceased to be in force after 12.8.1975, the agreement cannot be said to have become void. It may be mentioned that on the facts and circumstances of the case, the extended period during which the sale deed was to be executed after expiry of Gujarat Vacant Land Urban Areas Prohibition of Alienation Act, 1972, certainly rendered the contract uncertain. The initial agreement to sell was executed by Parshottamdas Babarbhai on 29.11.1971. Supplementary agreement exh.98 was executed on 17.11.1972 and another supplementary agreement exh.99 was executed on 13.7.1973. According to the last supplementary agreement the time limit of the agreement was extended for a period of three months after the provisions of Gujarat Vacant Land Urban Areas Prohibition of Alienation Act 1972 ceased to be in force. It was uncertain in the minds of the parties as to when the provisions of the Gujarat Vacan Land Urban Areas Prohibition of Alienation Act 1972 shall cease to be in force. Consequently, the terms in the supplementary agreement were uncertain which renders the contract uncertain and such uncertain contracts depending upon the happening of uncertain events could not be specifically enforced. In this view of the matter, it can be said that uncertain contract in its nature which cannot be determinable and which cannot be enforced in view of the provisions of Section 14(1)(c) of the Specific Relief Act could not be specficially enforced. The trial COurt was therefore justified in refusing to grant decree for specific performance though for inadequate reasons.