Judgement

Appeal (No. 23 of 1921) from a judgment and decree of the High Court in its appellate jurisdiction (July 29, 1919) reversing a decree of Marten J.

The suit was brought in the High Court by the respondent, since deceased, against the appellant for specific performance of a contract dated November 28, 1917, for the sale by the appellant of immovable property in the City of Bombay.

The facts are fully stated in the judgment of the Judicial Committee.

The trial judge, Marten J., dismissed the suit. He was of opinion that the documents relied on did not constitute a binding contract. On appeal Macleod C.J. and Heaton J. reversed that decision, and made a decree for specific performance.

1922. Nov. 7. Upjohn K.C., De Gruyther K.C., Holman Gregory K.C., E. B., Raikes and Parikh for the appellant. There was no concluded contract between parties. The documents in Gujarati expressly make the drawing up of a formal contract by a vakil a condition; further the earnest [@ page LRIA

Law Rep. 50 Ind. App. 25 ( 1922- 1923) Harichand Mancharam V. Govind Luxman Gokhale

218

26] money was not to be paid until that had been done. The vakil introduced further terms upon which the parties faile