A solenama is a concluded contract if it contains all the essential elements of a contract, including an offer, acceptance, consideration, and intention to create legal relations.

JUDGEMENT :- This appeal is by the defendants in a suit for specific performance of contract, alternatively for injunction.

2. The case of the plaintiff/respondent, in short, is as follows : Abhoy Pada Jana was the owner of a holding comprising an area of .62 acre and recorded in district settlement Khatian No. 212 of Mouza Agunshi Bhunera. Abhoy Pada died leaving behind six sons, namely, Rameswar, Prankrishna, Hare-krishna, Bharat, Kedar and Akhil as his heirs. Rameswar inherited .08 acre of the said property and made a of the same in favour of his second wife Nirmala Bala Jana (defendant No. 1) by a registered deed dated March 31, 1946. Nirmala Bala Jana instituted Title Suit No. 215 of 1961 in the Court of the Munsiff, Uluberia against Sudarshan Jana (the plaintiff), the forma defendant Nos. 3 and 4 and one Basudev Jana in respect of the said land and structures thereon. The suit was ultimately compromised between the parties and it was stipulated in the solenama that if the defendant No. 1 intended to sell the aforesaid property any part thereof in future she would first offer it at the prevailing market price to the other parties to the said solenama. In violation of the above express term of the solenama, the defendant No. 1 sold the said property, described in schedule Ka of the plaint, to Judhistir (the defendant No. 2) on March 31, 1967 without first offering it to the plaintiff and the other parties to the solenama. On such averments the plaintiff prayed for specific performance of the contract.

3. The plaintiffs alternative prayer for injunction was founded on the averment that in 1368 B.S. he purchased .01 acre out of the said plot (schedule Kha to the plaint) and raised residential structures thereon and that he had a right of way over the Ga schedule land of the plaint, which is a part and parcel of Ka schedule.

4. The defendants Nos. 1 and 2 contested the suit by filing a joint written statement wherein they denied the material allegations in the plaint. Their specific case is that the defendant No. 2 purchased the suit property from the defendant No. 1 for a consideration of Rs. 3,500/- by a registered Kobala dated March 31, 1967 and that before selling the property to the defendant No. 2, the defendant No. 1 had offered it to the plaintiff at the prevailing market price but the latter refused to purchase and that the defendant No. 2 was a bona fide purchaser of the property without notice of the earlier suit and the solenama allegedly filed in that suit.

5. The learned Munsiff, Additional Court, Uluberia, who tried the suit, found that the defendant No. 2 was a bona fide purchaser for value without notice of contract and accordingly disallowed the prayer for enforcement of specific performance of the contract made by the plaintiff. The alternative case made out by the plaintiff, however, found favour with him and he passed a decree for injunction as prayed for.

6. Against the judgement and the decree of the learned Munsiff the plaintiff preferred an appeal; and the defendant No. 2, in his turn, preferred a cross-objection against the finding of the learned Munsiff, in respect of the alternative case of the plaintiff. The learned Subordinate Judge, First Court, Howrah, disagreed with the finding of the learned Munsiff regarding the main case made out by the plaintiff and allowed the appeal and granted a decree for specific performance as prayed for. Consequently he also allowed the cross-objection preferred by the defendant No. 2. Hence this second appeal by the defendants.

7. Mr. Prabir Kumar Samanta, the learned Advocate appearing for the appellants raised three points in support of the appeal. He firstly contended that a plain reading of the solenama would clearly show that it was not a concluded contract and as such the question of passing a decree for specific performance of contract on the basis of the solenama could not and did not arise. His second contention was that the suit at the instance of one