The judgment establishes the principle that contracts should be upheld rather than readily declared invalid for uncertainty or vagueness, and that the plea of a contract being void for uncertainty is a question of law that can be raised at the appellate stage.

This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No. 56 of 1979 on the file of the Ist Additional Sub Judge, Trivandrum. The suit for specific performance of an agreement was decreed as prayed for and the defendant has filed this appeal.

2. In broad but necessarily in precise terms the shape of this case is as follows: The defendant-company is the owner of 5 acres and 2 cents of land comprised in Sy Nos. 896, 897, 898 and 911 in Sreekariyam of Pangappara village. The Managing Director of the defendant-company agreed to sell 1 acre of land out of the 5 acres and 2 cents of land to the plaintiff for a consideration of Ruppees 90,000/-. This property situate on the northern side of the public road which leads to the Government Engineering College. On 15-12-78 the plaintiff paid Rs. 10,000/- as advance amount and Ext. A1 receipt was issued by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff. Apart from Ext. A1, there was no separate written agreement between the parties. In Ext. A1 the description of the plot agreed to be sold is given as follows : "the plot is just behind the 1 acre of the front land". The balance amount of Rs. 80,000/- was agreed to be paid within one month from the date of Ext. A1 receipt. The plaintiff's further case is that on 28-12-1978 he paid Rs. 50,000/- to the defendant and the balance amount of Rs. 30,000/- was paid on 4-1-79 as per two cheques drawn in favour of the defendant. The defendant-company refused to execute the sale deed. The plaintiff came to know that the defendant was taking setups to sell the property to strangers. The plaintiff filed the suit for specific performance of the agreement alleging that the defendant committed breach of the agreement.

3. The defendant contested the suit and disputed the identity of the property. According to the defendant, the plaintiff wanted to have 1 acre of land on the northern side. The defendant further alleged that there is a pathway on the western side of the property and the 1 acre of front land referred to in Ext. A1 relates to 1 acre of land abutting this pathway on the western side and the plot agreed to be sold is behind this plot and not behind the 1 acre of land on the side of the Engineering College road. The defendant also contended that the company received only Rs. 60,000/- and the payment of Rs. 50,000/-, endorsed in Ext. A1, is inclusive of the amount covered by the two cheques issued in favour of the defendant. According to the defendant, the plaintiff was not willing to perform his part of the agreement and that he did not pay the balance consideration.

4. The Court below held that the plaintiff paid the entire consideration of Rs. 90,000/- and the plot agreed to be sold by the defendant to the plaintiff was 1 acre of land adjoining the plot of 1 acre of land abutting the Engineering College road. This finding is challenged by the appellant-defendant.

5. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that Rs. 90,000/- was not paid by the respondent-plaintiff. The Managing Director of the defendant-company was examined as DW1. DW1 admitted of having received Rs. 10,000/- at the time of Ext. A1 and he would state that thereafter the plaintiff paid only Rs. 50,000/- and not Rs. 80,000/-. DW1 as Managing Director of the company endorsed in Ext. A1 to the effect that on 28-12-78 a sum of Rs. 50,000/- was received by him. The defendant contended that the said amount was not in fact received by him but he received only two post-dated cheques and those cheques were dated 4-1-1979 and were encashed subsequently. Ext. X1 and X3 are the two cheques drawn by plaintiff's mother in favour of the defendant. Both these cheques are dated 4-1-1979. The defendant would contend that he received these cheques on 28-12-78 and he made an endorsement in Ext. A1 to the effect that he received Rs. 50,000/- inclusive of the amount covered by the two cheques. DWI, the Managing Director of the of the defendant company, is a highly educated man a