Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 4 of 4 (0.16 seconds)The Partition Act, 1893
Currimbhoy And Co. Ltd. vs L.A. Creet And Ors. on 23 August, 1929
In Currimbhoy and Company Ltd. v. Creet 2 the Judicial Com-
mittee expressed the view that the principle of the English
law which is summarised in the judgment of Parker, J. in Von
Hatzfeldt-Wildenburg v. Alexander(3) was be applicable in
India. The question in the present appeals is whether the
execution of a formal agreement was intended to be a
condition of the bargain dated July 6, 1952 or whether it
was a mere expression of the desire of the parties for a
formal agreement which can be ignored. The evidence adduced
on behalf of respondent No. 1 does not show that the drawing
up of a written agreement was a pre-requisite to the coming
into effect of the oral agreement. It is therefore not
possible to accept the contention of The appellant that the
oral agreement was ineffective in law because there is no
execution of any formal written document. As regards the
other point, it is true that there is no specific agreement
with regard to the mode of payment but this does not
necessarily make the agreement ineffective. The mere
omission to settle the mode of payment does not affect the
completeness of the contract because the vital terms of the
contract like the price and area of the land and the time
for completion of the sale were all fixed. We accordingly
hold that Mr. Gokhale is unable to make good his argument on
this aspect of the case.
Section 3 in The Partition Act, 1893 [Entire Act]
1