PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.

( 1 ) ON the pleadings of the parties, vide order dated 28/09/03, following issues were framed:"1]. Whether the document dated 16. 6. 2003 purporting to be receipt tantamount to an agreement to sell between the parties. 2]. Whether the signatures on document was obtained from the defendant under duress, undue influence as pleaded in the written statement, if so, its effects. 3. Relief. "

( 2 ) PARTIES have led evidence. In light of the pleadings, oral and documentary evidence led, I decide the three issues by the instant judgment.

( 3 ) ISSUE No. 1 requires adjudication in relation to the document dated 16. 06. 2003. The document is an admitted document and stands exhibited as Ex PW-1/1. It is a hand written document. It reads as under :-

16th June, 2003 RECEIPT

RECEIVED with thanks a sum of Rs. 50,000 /- (RUPEES fifty thousand only) from Shri

SANJAY PURI, S/o Late Shri P. R. PURI, R/o 3167 C-III, VASANT KUNJ, NEW DELHI-57

being the token advance towards sale of my Ground Floor flat at F5/7, VASANT

VIHAR, NEW delhi-57. THE total consideration has been fixed for

Rs. 1,15,00,000 /- (ONE CRORE and Fifteen Lacs only ). THE VACANT physical

possession shall be handed over some time in Oct. 2003.

Witness

DEEPAK jana

S/o Sh. Bihari Jana

F-5/7 Vasant Vihar

Sd /-

RADHEY lal

R/o f5/7 VASANT VIHAR Sd /-

New Delhi 57 R. C. NAIR

16th june 2003 sd /-

R. C. Nair

R/o S5 G. K. I

( 4 ) FOLLOWING stands recorded in Ex. PW-1/1:-a) Acknowledgment by defendant of having received Rs. 50,000/- from the plaintiff. b) Acknowledgment that sum of Rs. 50,000/- is token advance. c) Acknowledgment that sum of Rs. 50,000/- received as token advance is towards sale of ground floor of property no. F-5/7, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi-57. d) Acknowledgment that total sale consideration is Rs. 1,15,00,000/- (Rs. One Crore and Fifteen Lacs Only ). e) That vacant possession would be handed over in October, 2003.

( 5 ) EX. PW-1/1 is titled as a receipt, but mere heading or title of a document cannot deprive the document of it's real nature. Law is well settled. It is the substance and not the form which matters. (see AIR 1936 P. C. 171. Md. Akbar Khan Vs. Attar Singh and AIR 1976 SC 640 C. I. T. Punjab Vs. Panipat W and G mills ).

( 6 ) VIDE Section 2 (h) of the Contract Act, an agreement enforceable by law is a contract. Thus where a document has all features of an agreement to sell it would constitute a contract between the parties.

( 7 ) SECTION 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 defines sale as a transfer of ownership in exchange for a price paid or promised or part paid and part promised. As a corollary, a written document signed by the owner containing the terms on which ownership would be transferred, terms being the ones necessary to constitute the transfer, subject to acceptance by the purchaser would be an agreement to sell.

( 8 ) EX. PW-1/1 does not state that any formal agreement to sell would be executed. It records that defendant has received from the plaintiff a sum of rs. 50,000/- as token advance towards sale of the suit property, price whereof is rs. 1,15,00,000/- (Rs. One Crore and Fifteen Lacs Only ). Date when possession would be handed over has been fixed on October, 2003.

( 9 ) THE buyer is ascertained. The seller is ascertained. The property is ascertained. The sale price is ascertained. By recording that possession would be handed over in October,2003, date of completion of the sale transaction is firmed. All features of an agreement to sell are contained in Ex. PW-1/1.

( 10 ) LEARNED counsel for the defendant urged that Ex. PW-1/1 does not bear the signatures of the plaintiff and therefore cannot be an agreement to sell. Counsel drew attention to the fact that the defendant has categorically deposed as under :-"that Ex. PW-1/1 is not enforceable at law for want of mutuality the receipt of earnest money towards sale flat lacks the essential and basic ingredients required for an agreement to