1990 (10) TMI 380 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the document dated 16th October 1985 amounts to a contract or is merely a receipt.
2. Whether the contract is enforceable at law for want of mutuality.
3. Whether time was of the essence of the contract and if the plaintiff failed to perform the obligations within the specified time.
4. Whether the property subject matter of the contract has been identified or if the agreement is vague.
5. Whether the plaintiff satisfied the statutory requirement as per Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act.
6. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to specific performance of the agreement dated 16th October 1985.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Whether the document dated 16th October 1985 amounts to a contract or is merely a receipt:
The court analyzed the document titled 'RECEIPT' and found that it contained all essential terms required for an agreement to sell, including acknowledgment of receipt of rupees one lac, the total sale price, payment terms, and conditions for handing over possession. The document was signed by both parties and witnessed, indicating it was more than a mere receipt. The court held that the document was indeed a contract capable of specific performance.

2. Whether the contract is enforceable at law for want of mutuality:
The court rejected the defendant's argument of lack of mutuality, noting that the contract contained stipulations ensuring the vendor's security, such as the prohibition on construction by the purchaser until full payment. The court referenced Section 20(4) of the Specific Relief Act, which prevents refusal of specific performance merely on the ground of lack of mutuality. Thus, the contract was found enforceable.

3. Whether time was of the essence of the contract and if the plaintiff failed to perform the obligations within the specified time:
The court examined the sequence of events and found that the defendant repudiated the contract via a notice dated 10th November 1985, before the plaintiff's obligation to pay Rs. 3,40,000 within 30 days expired. The plaintiff had a bank draft ready and sent a telegram on 16th November 1985, offering the payment. The court concluded that time was not of the essence of the contract, and even if it were, the plaintiff's actions were timely and appropriate under the circumstances.

4. Whether the property subject matter of the contract has been identified or if the agreement is vague:
The court found that the contract clearly identified the property, including its plot number and area. The defendant's admission confirmed the property's identity was never in doubt. Therefore, the contract was not vague, and the property was sufficiently identified.

5. Whether the plaintiff satisfied the statutory requirement as per Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act:
The court reviewed the pleadings and evidence, including the plaintiff's consistent readiness and willingness to perform the contract. The plaintiff had made necessary averments in the plaint and supported them with evidence, fulfilling the statutory requirements of Section 16(c).

6. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to specific performance of the agreement dated 16th October 1985:
The court held that the plaintiff was entitled to specific performance of the contract. The agreement was complete, and there were no terms making its performance subject to any permissions. The defendant was directed to execute the sale deed and hand over possession upon the plaintiff depositing the balance sale consideration in court.

Judgment:
The suit of the plaintiff was decreed. The defendant was directed to execute the sale deed for plot No. E-554, Greater Kailash Part II, New Delhi, measuring 275 Sq. Yds., in favor of the plaintiff and hand over possession upon the plaintiff depositing the balance sale consideration in court. The plaintiff was given two months to deposit the balance amount, and the defendant was given two weeks to obtain necessary permissions and execute the sale deed. If the defendant failed to comply, the plaintiff could seek further directions from the court to have the sale deed executed through the Registrar of the court and obtain possession through the court's process. The plaintiff was also entitled to costs.