Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 6 of 6 (0.41 seconds)Section 10 in The Indian Contract Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Alka Bose vs Parmatma Devi & Ors on 17 December, 2008
In Aloka
Bose case (Supra) a similar question was under consideration i.e. as
to whether an agreement to sell executed only by the vendor and not
by the purchaser is valid or not. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held at
paragraph 7 that an agreement of sell comes into existence when
the vender 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 the
parties. It can also be by a document in two parts, each party
signing one copy and then exchanging the signed copy as a
significance of which the purchaser has the copy signed by the
vender and a vender has a copy signed by the purchaser or it
can be by the vender executing the document and deliver it to
the purchaser accepts one. In the said paragraph it has been held
that in India an agreement of sale signed by the vendor alone and
delivered to the purchaser and accepted by the purchaser has always
been considered to be a valid contract in the event of breach by the
vender it can be specifically enforced by the purchaser. There is
however, no practice of purchaser alone signing an agreement of sell.
In the present case also it is the specific pleading of the plaintiffs in
-12-
both the suits that there was oral agreement and pursuant to the oral
agreement the defendant executed the Ext.1 in the presence of
witnesses signed by the defendant only. Therefore, this judgment of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court clearly covers the present question raised
by the learned counsel for the appellants. Moreover, in the present
case the defendant is not disputing execution of Ext.1. I therefore, find
no force in the submission of the learned counsel for the appellants.
Kartar Singh vs Harjinder Singh And Others on 21 February, 1990
No doubt, it is well settled as has
been held in the case of Kartar Singh (Supra) that whenever a share in
the property is sold the vendee has a right to apply for partition of the
property and get the share demarcated but in the present case, the
share of the defendant is only 6 kattha. When the co-sharer objected,
he requested the purchasers to take back the earnest money and out
of the three persons one received back the amount but these two
plaintiffs filed the suits. Therefore, from the facts of the present case
at our hand, it appears that the defendants entered into an agreement
to sell the property thinking himself to be the absolute owner and in
fact in both the appeals he agreed to sell 9 decimals which is much in
excess of his share. The question is can he be compelled to execute
the sale deed with respect to excess of his share. The other aspect is if
he is compelled to execute with regard to his share only then with
regard to which agreement of sale. If he is compelled to execute sale
deed with regard to the agreement involved in First Appeal No. 5 of
2008 then why should not the other agreement be also enforced and
vice versa. In no case he can satisfy both the agreement. It will lead
multiplicity of proceedings between the purchasers and the other co-
-15-
sharers. It is also admitted fact that the said land is within the one
compound wall and used as garden of the house.
Section 12 in The Indian Contract Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Section 12 in The Specific Relief Act, 1963 [Entire Act]
1