1990 (4) TMI 304 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:

1. Validity and enforceability of the agreement dated 16.9.1971.
2. Admissibility of Ext. PW-11/A as evidence.
3. Specific performance of the contract.
4. Alternative relief of refund of earnest money.

Summary of Judgment:

1. Validity and Enforceability of the Agreement:

The plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance of an agreement dated 16.9.1971 for the sale of property, including machinery, for Rs. 50,000, with an earnest money payment of Rs. 5,000. The defendant contested the suit, claiming the agreement was not properly stamped, was a paper transaction, and pertained only to movable property. The trial court and the first appellate court found in favor of the plaintiff, but the High Court set aside the decree for specific performance, ruling that no valid contract could be inferred from Ext. PW-11/A.

2. Admissibility of Ext. PW-11/A as Evidence:

The trial court initially disallowed Ext. PW-11/A, an entry in the Petition Writer's Register, as it was a duplicate of the original document. The High Court later allowed it to be impounded and admitted as evidence. The Supreme Court upheld this, stating the entry would be eligible for admission but should be evaluated properly. The High Court eventually held that Ext. PW-11/A did not constitute a valid contract, as it lacked the defendant's signature and was merely an extract of the original document.

3. Specific Performance of the Contract:

The Supreme Court emphasized that specific performance requires a valid and enforceable contract. The High Court found that the terms of the agreement were uncertain, particularly regarding the inclusion of the building and the alternative promise involving Lajwanti's share. The correspondence between the parties indicated a lack of consensus ad idem, and the court concluded that the agreement was not sufficiently certain to warrant specific performance.

4. Alternative Relief of Refund of Earnest Money:

The High Court decreed a refund of the Rs. 5,000 earnest money to the plaintiff. The Supreme Court upheld this decision, agreeing that there was no valid and enforceable contract for specific performance. The appeal was dismissed, and the plaintiff was entitled only to the refund of the earnest money.

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's finding that there was no valid and enforceable contract between the parties as evidenced by Ext. PW-11/A. The appeal was dismissed, and the plaintiff was awarded a refund of the Rs. 5,000 earnest money without any order as to costs.