A valid contract requires signatures from both parties; unilateral agreements are not binding, and intention behind property transactions must be established by the real owner.

JUDGMENT :

Anil L. Pansare, J.

1. Heard Ms Astha Sharma, learned counsel instructed by Mr. P. R. Agrawal, learned counsel for the appellant and Ms Archana Lanjewar, learned counsel instructed by Mr. N. R. Saboo, learned counsel for the respondents.

2. The appeal has been admitted on the following substantial question of law.

"Whether agreement dated 07.07.1995 stands proved and whether the said agreement is binding upon the appellant/original plaintiff?"

3. Having heard both sides and having gone through the record, it appears that the agreement dated 07.07.1995 is a unilateral document executed by the husband of plaintiff in favour of defendant No. 1, stating therein that he has sold the suit plot for Rs. 25,000/-. The plaintiff is the owner of the suit plot. The document, however, does not bear signature of the plaintiff and/or the defendant No. 1.

4. The case of the appellant-plaintiff will have to be understood in the light of the above. The appellant, who is wife of Kallu Khan, had filed a suit against the respondents-defendants for possession and damages. Admittedly, the suit plot is in the name of the appellant. The respondents, claiming document Exh. 78 dated 07.07.1995 as contract, have come up with a defence that the suit plot has been sold by the real owner i.e. appellant's husband to respondent no.1, for Rs. 25,000/-. The respondent No. 1 then pleaded that he was put in possession of the suit plot and has incurred expenses for construction of house and, therefore, is entitled for protection under Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (hereinafter referred to as the, "Act").

5. The plea of respondents was found to be meritorious by the Courts below. They, however, have failed to consider the ingredients of a valid contract. To have a valid contract, there has to be 'proposal and acceptance' and for that the agreement/contract must be signed by both the parties and if the agreement/contract is not signed, an evidence ought to be led viz. the documents, approved and signed by the parties in the form of e-mail, letters, telex, telegram and other means of telecommunication to prove the agreement/contract

6. In the present case, the contract is not signed by the appellant and respondent No. 1. The document, which is said to be a contract, has been signed by the appellant's husband. In the circumstances, the respondent No. 1 could not have taken a plea of a concluded contract between him and the appellant, neither being signatory to the document. He is further not entitled to seek protection in terms of Section 53-A of the Act because the execution of the contract between the parties itself has been not established and, therefore, there arises no question of handing over possession of the suit plot in terms of agreement/contract between the parties.

7. Learned counsel for the respondents has relied upon judgment in the case of Labhchand Shankarlal and Others .Vs. Mst. Sharifabi, AIR 1961 BOMBAY 215, to contend that the respondents will be entitled to protection under Section 53-A of the Act. However, the facts were altogether different. In the said case, the contract was signed on behalf of the vendor, the draft sale deed was prepared, the entire consideration amount was paid, the possession of land was delivered to the purchaser, the sale deed was not registered on account of sudden death of the vendor. The vendor's son instituted a suit for possession stating therein that they were not parties to the contract. It is, in this context, the Division Bench of this Court noted that the contract was signed by the then vendor who was Karta of the family and thus has signed it on behalf of the family members as well.

8. Such is not the case here. Firstly, the contract itself is not complete. The appellant is not signatory to the contract. Secondly, the appellant's husband, and not the appellant, has signed the contract. The Courts below and particularly, the First Appellate Court has validated the contract on the ground that