The main legal point established in the judgment is that for a contract to be enforceable, it must be clear and certain, including essential details such as property description, sale price, and performance period.

(Prayer: Appeal against the Decree and Judgment dated 5.12.1991 made in O.S.No.487 of 1987 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Judge of Coimbatore.)

The unsuccessful plaintiff in O.S.No.487 of 1987 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore is the appellant in the appeal. For the sake of convenience, the parties are hereinafter referred to as per their array in the suit.

2. The suit was filed for directing the defendants to execute a sale deed in favour of the plaintiff, in respect of suit property at his cost and on his paying the balance sale price of Rs.25,000/-.

3. The trial Court dismissed the suit by judgment and decree dated 5.12.1991. Aggrieved by that, the plaintiff has filed the present appeal. The brief facts of the case as pleaded by the plaintiff are as follows:

The suit schedule property was originally owned by Kannappan @ K.S. Shanmugham and the first defendant entered into an agreement with him to purchase the said property in the year 1979. Thereafter, the first defendant represented by the second defendant agreed to sell the suit property to the plaintiff and in pursuance of the agreement, received a sum of Rs.5,001/- towards a part of the sale price on 16.7.1979 by cheque No.058376 issued by the plaintiff in favour of the first defendant on the Indian Bank, Coimbatore. It has been agreed between the parties that the defendants shall sell the property for a sum of Rs.30,001/- to the plaintiff and that the sale should be effected after the first defendant purchased the property from the aforesaid Kannappan @ Shanmugham as per the agreement of sale. Time is not the essence of the contract.

4. On 11.2.1980, Kannappan @ Shanmugham executed a registered sale deed in receipt of the suit property for a sum of Rs.14,400/- in favour of the second defendant representing the first defendant firm. After that the second defendant gave a copy of the original sale deed to the plaintiff in token of his promise to execute a sale deed in his favour as agreed to on 16.7.1979. Though the defendants have agreed to convey the property to the plaintiff, they have not executed the sale deed, inspite of the fact that there was an agreement with the plaintiff. The plaintiff approached the second defendant on several occasions and pressed him to execute the sale deed in his favour at his cost but, the defendants have been postponing the execution. The plaintiff therefore sent a notice dated 3.9.1986 to the second defendant representing the first defendant firm. There was no reply. Again a notice dated 17.5.1987 was issued to the second defendant. Though, the second defendant received that notice on 19.5.1987, there was no reply.

5. In paragraph 6 of the plaint, it is stated that the cause of action arose on 16.7.1979 when the plaintiff agreed to purchase the suit property and paid an advance of Rs.5,001/- to the second defendant representing the first defendant firm; on 12.2.1980 when the suit property was purchased by the second defendant and a copy of the sale deed was handed over to the plaintiff, on 3.9.1986 when the plaintiff sent a notice to the second defendant representing the first defendants firm; on 17.5.1987 when the plaintiff sent another notice to the second respondent . Subsequently, the plaintiff has not stated as to when the defendants refused to execute the sale deed. On the above said pleadings, the suit has been filed for specific performance.

6. The suit was contested by the defendants, by filing a written statement through the second defendant which has been adopted by defendants 1 and 3. In the written statement, it is stated as follows:

(i) It is not correct to state that M/s. Bharat Rubber Company can be represented by the second defendant. The partnership firm had been reconstituted and the second defendant was not a partner of the first defendant firm on the date of filing of the suit. The description of property is also misleading. The plaintiff claims relief only in respect of an e