Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 22 (0.22 seconds)P. Panneerselvan vs A. Baylis (Deceased By L.Rs.) And Ors. on 20 April, 2006
The said decision states that an agreement to sell should be specific and the
plaintiff has to succeed on his/her own case and should not depend upon the
weakness of the defendant's case. The cited decision of the Division Bench of
this Court, is also on the point that there was no specificity about the
property in the transaction referred to in that case. So much so, here also the
oral agreement as found detailed in the plaint, does not refer to the exact
portion of the property which was agreed to be sold. However, learned counsel
for the plaintiff would try to highlight that it was the western portion which
was allotted to the first defendant out of the entire 35 cent of the lands.
That out of that total 35 cents of land, 24 cents have been under the possession
of the plaintiff. It is stated that even when D.W.1 (first defendant) allegedly
at the time of the oral agreement to sell, enquired P.Ws.4 to 6 as to whether
out of the extent of 24 cents in their possession, the 17 cents would serve
their purpose, they replied as though that was sufficient.
Suresh Narain Sinha vs Akhauri Balbhadra Prasad And Ors. on 25 January, 1957
These are
all factual evidence which would go to show that there was no concluded oral
agreement. Placing reliance on Section 29 of the Contract Act, learned counsel
for the plaintiff in his oral and written argument would proceed to stress upon
the fact that the oral agreement cannot be termed or described as incapable of
being made certain. Such an argument is neither here nor there in the light of
the discussion supra. Learned counsel for the plaintiff relied on a decision
of a Division Bench of the Patna High Court in A.I.R. 1957 Patna, 256 (SURESH
NARAIN v. AKHAURI). The said decision would not enure to the benefit of the
plaintiff for the reason that in this case the proposed purchaser's name as well
as the description of the property in addition to time are not clear.
Gostho Behari Sirkar vs Surs' Estates Ltd. on 12 May, 1960
22. Learned counsel for the plaintiff would cite the decision in GOSTHO
BEHARI v. SURS ESTATES LTD. (A.I.R.1960 CALCUTTA, 752) to highlight the point
that non-disclosure of the identity of the purchaser would not be fatal to the
case for specific performance. There, the factual matrix was entirely different
as on behalf of undisclosed purchaser a solicitor negotiated and as such, the
cited decision is having no relevance to the facts and circumstances of the
case. The following decisions have been cited by learned counsel for the
plaintiff to buttress the argument that legal document cannot be declared void
for uncertainty on flimsy grounds. Such is not the position in view of the
reasons discussed supra.
Khivraj Chordia And Ors. vs Esso Standard Eastern Inc. on 29 November, 1974
(1) KHIVRAJ CHORDIA v. E.S.EASTERN INC. (A.I.R.1975 Madras, 374) and
RAJKISHOR v. BANABEHARI (A.I.R.(38) 1951 ORISSA, 291).
Rajkishor Mohanty And Anr. vs Banabehari Patnaik And Ors. on 8 August, 1949
(1) KHIVRAJ CHORDIA v. E.S.EASTERN INC. (A.I.R.1975 Madras, 374) and
RAJKISHOR v. BANABEHARI (A.I.R.(38) 1951 ORISSA, 291).
N. Saraswathi Ammal vs Jayaram Rao And 2 Others on 25 August, 1998
(2) KALYANPUR LIME WORKS v. STATE OF BIHAR (A.I.R.1954 S.C., 165)
(3) SARASWATHI AMMAL,N. v. JAYARAM RAO (1998 (II) CTC, 613).
Mithu Khan vs Pipariyawali And Ors. on 23 November, 1984
(5) MITHU KHAN v. PIPARIYAWALI (A.I.R.1986 M.P., 39)
(6) VARGHESE DANIEL v. BALAKRISHANAN & ANOTHER (1999 (1) L.W., 156)
(7) RADHA KISHAN KAUL v. SHANKAR DAS (AIR.1927 LAHORE,252)
(8) RAJAMMAL v. GOPALASWAMI (AIR (38) 1951 Madras, 767)
(9) SOHBAT DEI v. DEVI PHAL (A.I.R.1971 S.C., 2192).
Kedar Lal And Anr. vs Hari Lall on 6 March, 1950
(10) KEDAR LAL v. HARI LAL (A.I.R.(39) 1952 S.C., 47)
(11) BADAT & CO. v. EAST INDIA TRADING CO. (A.I.R.1964 S.C., 538).
Smt. Mayawanti vs Smt. Kaushalya Devi on 6 April, 1990
The position in similar in the case of second Receipt dated 03.10.1991. A
total sale consideration is Rs.11,87,500/- and the amount paid in Rs.15,000/- to
each of the three Defendants. This document further mentions that upon receipt
of the sum equivalent to ten per cent of the total sale consideration, the
executants would be ready to enter into an Agreement, As in the case of the
first Receipt, a perusal of this document, itself would lead to the conclusion
that only an inchoate understanding, not an agreement, had been arrived at. The
consensus ad idem was that on receipt of the payment of the larger sum of
approximately ten per cent an Agreement was to be executed. On such
documentation, it would not be possible to hold that a prima facie case had been
made out. As has been laid down in Mayawanti V. Kaushalya Devi, (1990) 3 SCC 1,
burden of showing the stipulation and terms of the contract and that the minds
were ad idem lies on the plaintiff. If the stipulations and terms are uncertain
there can be no specific performance, for there is not contract at all. Where
there are negotiations, the Court has to determine at what point, if at all, the
parties have reached agreement". There can be no manner of doubt that in the
present case the Agreement was yet to be reached.