IMPORTANT POINT
An oral agreement for the sale of immovable property requires proof of consideration and a concluded contract to be enforceable under the Indian Contract Act.

JUDGMENT :

B Syamsunder, J.

As parties to both appeals, and their respective contentions are similar, both appeals are disposed of by way of Common Judgment.

AS No.413 of 2001:

2. AS No.413 of 2001 is filed by the appellants/plaintiffs against the Judgment and Decree passed in OS No.89 of 1994 on the file of Additional Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Srikakulam dated 20.10.2000. The said suit was originally filed by the appellants/plaintiffs against the respondents for specific performance of contract of sale under oral agreement of sale, dated 01.06.1994 in between the appellants and respondent Nos.1 to 4 in respect of plaint schedule site, which is described as under:

PLAINT SCHEDULE FILED BY THE ABOVE PLAINTIFFS RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH AS FOLLOWS:

Vacant site situated in the southern row of Mandala Street, Near Surya Mahal Theatre, in Srikakulam town, within the limits of Srikakulam Sub-Registration in Srikakulam Mandal in Srikakulam District, measuring East to West 37 feet (11.28 metres) and North to South 80 feet (24.54 metres) i.e., 7 ½ cents covered by Town Survey Number 47 whose market value is Rs.4.12,500-00 at the rate of Rs.55,000-00 ps per cent having the following boundaries:

3. During pendency of the suit, the respondent Nos.5 and 6 have filed petition to implead them as defendants in the suit, which was allowed by the trial Court, who are said to be the purchasers of plaint schedule property from the respondent Nos.1 to 4, under original of Exs.B2 and B3/sale deeds. During pendency of the appeal, the 1st respondent/1st defendant died, and her legal representatives are added as respondent Nos.7 to 9.

4. The appellants and the respondents hereinafter referred to as plaintiffs and defendants as arrayed before the trial Court for the sake of brevity and convenience.

5. It is the contention of the plaintiffs that they are brothers and sons of late Mr.Ramachandra Sahu. The 1st defendant is the wife, and the defendant Nos.2 to 4, are the sons of late Mr.Baratam Lakshminarayana @ Thavudu. The defendant Nos.1 to 4, are the owners of suit schedule property. The plaintiffs submit that the husband of the 1st defendant and father of defendant Nos.2 to 4 late Mr.Lakshminarayana @ Thavudu leased out the plaint schedule site to their father Mr.Ramachandra Sahu, about 40 years back, who put-up a shed therein and was running a timber depot till the year 1977. It is the contention of the plaintiffs that after the death of Mr.Ramachandra Sahu, they are running said timber depot. While so, in the 2nd week of May, they came to know that the defendant Nos.1 to 4 are contemplating to sell the plaint schedule site, due to that the 1st plaintiff approached the 2nd defendant and came to know that his brothers and mother are contemplating to sell the plaint schedule site for better price is offered. In the 3rd week of May,1994 the plaintiffs went to the house of the defendant Nos.1 to 4 and informed their willingness to purchase plaint schedule site, who agreed to sell for the price as contemplated by them if it is @ Rs.60,000/- per cent, whereas the plaintiffs offered the price @ Rs.50,000/- per cent. The plaintiffs have stated that in order to settle the bargain, themselves and the defendant Nos.1 to 4 approached Mr.Narayanasetty Venkata Seshagiri Rao (PW.2), Advocate practicing at Srikakulam on 01.06.1994. They submit that the total extent of plaint schedule site is 7 ½ cents, and in the presence of PW.2/ Mr.N.V.Seshagiri Rao discussions were made and after deliberations, the defendant Nos.1 to 4 have agreed to sell suit site to them @ Rs.55,000/-, which they agreed to purchase. The main contention of the plaintiffs is that on 01.06.1994 the defendant Nos.1 to 4 have orally agreed to sell the plaint schedule property @ Rs.55,000/- per cent, which they agreed to purchase i