High Court Of Calcutta
AMAL KANTI BHATTACHARJI, SANKARI PRASAD DAS GHOSH
BYOMKESH BANERJEE - Appellant
Versus
NANI GOPAL BANIK - Respondent
A. F. O. D. 282 Of 1977
Decided On : 08/18/1986
SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE - CONTRACT FOR SALE OF LAND - OFFER AND ACCEPTANCE - REVOCATION OF OFFER - COMMUNICATION OF ACCEPTANCE - READY AND WILLINGNESS TO PERFORM - AMENDMENT OF PLAINT - VAGUENESS OF DESCRIPTION OF SUIT-LAND - TENANCY IN RESPECT OF STRUCTURES ON SUIT-LAND.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff offered to purchase the defendant's land at Rs. 3000/- per Katha. The defendant replied that he had received higher offers and asked the plaintiff to inform him if he was agreeable to purchase the land at Rs. 3300/- per katha. The plaintiff replied by enclosing a bank draft for Rs. 3000/- and stating that he would pay the balance amount before or on the execution of the Sale Deed in his favor. The defendant sent a letter stating that the proposal made by him to the plaintiff stood cancelled and he would no longer sell the land. The plaintiff served a notice through his lawyer and ultimately filed the suit for specific performance.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the defendant's letter to the plaintiff contained an offer to sell the land and not a mere invitation to the plaintiff to make his offer. The court further held that the plaintiff's acceptance of the offer was communicated to the defendant by posting the letter of acceptance, even though the letter was not received by the defendant. The court also held that the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract, as evidenced by his repeated attempts to send the advance amount to the defendant and his unchallenged statement on oath that he was always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract.
Issues: 1. Whether the defendant's letter to the plaintiff contained an offer to sell the land or a mere invitation to the plaintiff to make his offer? 2. Whether the plaintiff's acceptance of the offer was communicated to the defendant? 3. Whether the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract? 4. Whether the description of the suit-land was vague and indefinite to admit of specific performance? 5. Whether the alleged agreement to sell the land after removing the structures would make it impossible to decree specific performance as agreed?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. An offer to sell land can be made through a letter, even if the letter contains a counter-offer. 2. Acceptance of an offer is complete when it is communicated to the offeror, even if the offeror does not receive the communication. 3. A plaintiff in a specific performance suit must aver and prove that he was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract at all relevant times. 4. A plaintiff will not be non-suited for failure to aver and prove his readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract if the materials on record clearly and sufficiently demonstrate such readiness and willingness. 5. A suit for specific performance will not be dismissed on the ground of vagueness of description of the suit-land if the description is sufficient to identify the land. 6. A suit for specific performance will not be dismissed on the ground that there is a tenancy in respect of the structures on the suit-land if the alleged agreement is to sell the land after removing the structures.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment and decree passed by the trial court, and remanded the suit back to the court for re-trial.
( 1 ) IN this appeal against a decree for specific performance of a contract to sell land, Mr. Ali, the learned Advocate appearing for the appellant, has urged that, firstly, there was no offer from and on behalf of the defendant-appellant to sell land to the plaintiff respondent, and that, secondly, even if there was any such offer, there was in law no acceptance thereof by and on behalf of the plaintiff-respondent and Mr. Ali has accordingly urged that the learned Judge was wrong in decreeing the suit.
( 2 ) IT appears from the evidence on record that the plaintiff-respondent by his letter, Ext. 1, to the defendant-appellant offered to purchase the disputed land at Rs. 3000/- per Katha. This offer does not appear to have been accepted by the defendant who by his reply, Ext. 8, stated that he had already received higher offers at the rate of Rs. 3,250/- per Katha and the plaintiff was therefore required to inform him if he was agreeable to purchase the land at the rate of Rs. 3,300/- per katha and, if so agreeable, to send Rs. 3000/- towards advance. The plaintiff replied by Ext. 2 enclosing therewith a bank draft for Rs. 3000/- and stating therein that he would pay the balance amount before or on the execution of the Sale Deed in his favour. Ext. 2 was dated 13-5-74 and was sent by registered post on the same date under postal receipt Ext. 5 (a), but it came back with the postal endorsement "unclaimed" and "absent". Thereafter the said bank draft was again sent to the defendant by registered post on 29-6-74 along with a letter of that date, Ext. 10, written by the plaintiff's lawyer wherein it was reiterated that the said amount was being sent "as advance" as demanded by the defendant against his offer of sale of land and this letter also came back with postal endorsement "refused", vide Ext. 4 (a ). The plaintiff thereafter received a letter from the defendant dated 29-6-74, being Ext. 2 (a), wherein it was stated that the proposal made by the defendant to the plaintiff stood cancelled and the defendant would no longer sell the land. The plaintiff thereafter served a notice through his lawyer dated 30-7-1974 and ultimately filed the suit for specific performance. The trial Court has decreed the suit and hence this appeal by the defendant.
( 3 ) APPEARING for the defendant-appellant, Mr. Ali has very strongly urged that the defendant having made no offer to sell his land at any point of time, there was nothing for the plaintiff to accept which could give rise to any concluded contract to sustain the suit and warrant a decree for specific performance. Mr. Ali has contended that the letter Ext. 8 written by the defendant to the plaintiff contained no offer but was a mere invitation to make offer and that, in pursuance thereto, the plaintiff made his offer to purchase the land by his letter Ext. 2; but this offer of the plaintiff in Ext. 2 not having been accepted by the defendant at any stage, no contract ever came into existence. Mr. Ali has referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in Macpherson v. Appanna, AIR 1951 SC 184 to fortify his contention that Ext. 8 could not and did not contain any offer, but was only an invitation to the plaintiff to make his offer.
( 4 ) WE are however, of the view that the plaintiff initially made his offer, not by Ext. 2, but by Ext. 1, wherein he offered to the defendant to purchase his land at Rs. 3000/per katha. But this was not accepted by the defendant as he was already getting higher offers and defendant accordingly by Ext. 8 made his offer, rather his counter-offer, to sell land at Rs. 3300/- per Katha. The categorical instruction by the defendant to the plaintiff in Ext. 8 to send Rs. 3000/- "as advance" leaves us in no doubt that what was conveyed by the defendant in Ext. 8 was a clear offer to sell the land and not a mere invitation to the plaintiff to make his offer. And even if there could be any doubt about this, the same is dispelled by the defend
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.