The court established that a document, even if signed by one party, can be enforceable under the Specific Relief Act if it demonstrates acceptance and promise as per the Indian Contract Act.

1. This appeal has been preferred against the concurrent findings of both the courts below decreeing the plaintiffs/respondents suit for specific performance of contract basing on a Mahadanama in Title Suit No. 12/1987 (228/88) and M.T.A. No. 10/93 (8/99).

2. An agreement was arrived at on 15.11.1986 in writing between the plaintiff and the defendant/appellant Sukhdeo Das for a consideration of Rs. 12,0007- The large amount of consideration to the tune of Rs. 10,000/- had been paid at the time of making agreement from the side of the plaintiff and then he was put into the possession by the defendant and there was further conditions stipulated that within a period of time as mentioned in the agreement itself the defendant would execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff by taking the balance amount of Rs. 2,000/-. When the time became ripen the plaintiff requested the defendant to take the balance amount of Rs. 2,000/- and execute the same but he did not do and started evading. Then a Pleaders notice was sent by the plaintiff to the defendant to execute the sale deed by taking the balance amount of Rs. 2,000/- but such notice was refused on being sent by registered post from the side of the defendant. Hence the suit has been filed. There was specific averment in the plaint that the plaintiff was all along ready to pay the balance amount of Rs. 2,000/- i.e. regarding part performance of the part of contract but the defendant was not doing his part. It appears that the defendant in the meantime, had sold away the suit land to the third parties who were also parties in the suit but those defendants i.e. the subsequent purchasers had not contested the suit. The defendants plea was that he had never entered into the contract/agreement nor there was any payment of money to him and, as such, the suit is liable to be dismissed. Both parties adduced evidence and in course of adjudication the signature of the defendant was tallied with that of the agreement (which is generally called in Bihar as Mahadanama) and on scientific examination the handwriting expert found that the defendants singature tallied and after consideration of the evidence of both the parties the suit was decreed by the trial court and on appeal being preferred and on independent scrutiny of the evidence on record the appellate court had also maintained the decree in favour of the plaintiff by dismissing the appeal.

3. Thus the present appeal is against the concurrent finding of both the courts below. Mr. V. Nath learned counsel appearing for and on behalf of defendant/appellant has urged a law point before this court for the purpose of admission of the appeal, although such point of law was never raised before the courts below at any point of time. His only contention is that Mahadnama as it has been construed and the framing of the suit on the basis of Mahadnama are not maintainable legally and hence the decree granted by both the courts below are illegal. His simple contention is that when the Mahadnama has not been signed from the side of the plaintiff then it becomes only an unilateral document and cannot be said to be a bilateral document or the contract as contemplated under the Indian Contract Act and hence suit on the basis of contract under the Specific Relief Act is not maintainable and at best if the suit had been construed or framed construing the Mahadnama as only an undertaking from the side of the defendant then parhaps the suit might have been maintainable but it is not maintainable for part performance under the Specific Relief Act, The main thrust of Mr. Nath learned counsel appearing for and on behalf of the appellant is that unless the Mahadnama is being signed by both the parties to the agreement/contract it cannot be enforceable because the enforcement must be such that it can be done simultaneously by both the parties. His main contention is that as there is nothing in the hands of the defendant if the plaintiff would have been den