JUDGMENT :-SA MP No.2971/2007 is filed praying for permission of this Court to formulate the substantial questions of law in the present second appeal.

2. The appellant filed the present application praying for the formulation of the substantial questions of law arising in the present second appeal. In view of the facts and circumstances explained, this Court is inclined to order the said application and accordingly the same is hereby ordered.

3. The following substantial questions of law arise for consideration in this second appeal :

(a) Whether Ex.A.5 dated 15.12.1974 constituted a legal offer (proposal) made to the appellant/ plaintiff for outright sale of the suit plot at Rs. 10/- per Sq. yard to him and whether an agreement is formed by the compliance of the conditions in such offer (proposal)?

(b) Whether the scheme evolved by the 1st respondent/1st defendant on its formation from 1.1.1974 constitutes an open offer and the appellant/ plaintiff is entitled to the allotment of the suit plot on the outright sale basis by complying with the conditions of such offer?

(c) Whether the said scheme disentitles the holder of adjoining industrial unit alone as ineligible for the allotment if he is in arrears of rents, if any, for the adjoining industrial unit?

(d) Whether there is any other legally formed agreement with others in order to impede the allotment to the appellant/plaintiff and if so with whom and with regard to which subject-matter?

4. Sri Natraj Sharma, the learned Counsel representing the appellant having pointed out to the substantial questions of law formulated had taken through the respective pleadings of the parties, the evidence available on record and made elaborate submissions on the aspect of offer and acceptance and proposal and acceptance. The learned Counsel also had taken this Court through the contents of Ex.A.5 and Ex.A.6 as well and made certain submissions in relation to the named officer Rajaratnam. The 2nd defendant is a person and not a firm. The conditions of acceptance had been complied with. When the offer was not withdrawn, it may have to be taken that the contract is complete When once the acceptance is received it would amount to completion of the contract. The findings relating to readiness and willingness to pay the balance of consideration also had been argued in elaboration. The defendants had not repudiated the contract at any point of time and it is not known whether any steps had been taken in that direction. The Counsel also pointed out to certain relevant provisions of the Indian Companies Act 1956 as well in this regard. The sketch had not been produced and it is pertinent to note the said document is in their custody and the non-production thereof should enure to the benefit of the appellant in this regard. The judgment of the first appellate Court is not of much help inasmuch as all the aspects had not been taken into consideration. No relief had been prayed for as against the 2nd defendant and the 2nd defendant is just a proforma defendant. The Counsel also further explained the findings recorded by the Court of first instance and also the findings recorded by the appellate Court and how this second appeal filed is perfectly maintainable in the facts and circumstances of the case. The Counsel also relied upon several decisions to substantiate his submissions.

5. On the contrary, Sri Sreedhar Reddy and Simhardi representing the respondents had taken this Court through the respective pleadings of the parties and the evidence available on record and would maintain that even if the contents of EX.A5 to be taken into consideration, it cannot be said to be a conc1uded contract. The learned Counsel also explained how the suit was decreed and how two appeals were preferred and the appeals were allowed and how only one second appeal had been preferred and in the light of the same, the Counse1 would maintain that this second appeal cannot be maintained since the decree and judgment made in the ot

Click Here to Read the rest of this document