An agreement to be enforceable must be mutual and binding on both parties.

S. M. ABDUL WAHAB, J.

The Second Appeal has been filed by the unsuccessful plaintiff in the lower appellate court. The suit is for specific performance of an agreement said to have been executed on 19-10-1973 for the sale of 4.16 acres in Survey No. 275 in Naiyapakkam Village for Rs. 1, 040/-. From the said date, he has been in possession after payment of a sum of Rs. 100/- as advance. He has been paying kist also. Again on 17-1-1974 another agreement was entered into, as the sale could not be completed as per the earlier agreement. After the second agreement, the third defendant using his influence has obtained the sale deed for the very same property from the defendants 1 and 2, on 20-2-1974. The sale deed is invalid. Hence the plaintiff is entitled for specific performance of sale. Defendants 1 and 2 supported the case of the plaintiff. The third defendant alone contested the suit. According to him, the agreements dated 19-10-1973 and 17-1-1974 are not valid agreements. They are not true documents at all. The sale in his favour is genuine. From the date of sale, he is in possession of the suit property

2. The trial court has granted the decree a prayed for. During the pendency of the suit the first defendant was dead. Hence the second defendant was dead. Hence the second defendant was recorded as the legal representative. Similar, D-3 also died and defendants 4 to 10 were added as his legal representatives. The appeal was preferred by the legal representatives of the third defendant. On a consideration of all the facts, the lower appellant Court reversed the judgment and decree of the trial Court. Hence the Second Appeal has been preferred by the unsuccessful plaintiff

3. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the lower appellate Court was wrong in holding Exs. A. 1 and A. 2 are not valid documents when the defendants 1 and 2 have not denied the agreements by going into the box. Therefore the agreements must be presumed to be genuine one and the third defendant cannot question the same

4. The learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand contended that the lower appellate Court was justified in coming to the conclusion that the agreements Exs. A.1 and A.2 were not genuine

5. Before we go into the question of genuineness and validity of Exs. A. 1 and A. 2, one vital fact which was not noticed by the lower Court is that Exs. A. 1 and A. 2 do not contain the signature of the plaintiff at all. Exs. A. 1 and A. 2 have been signed only by the defendants 1 and 2. The first one is on a blank paper. The preamble of the said document Ex. A-1 shows that the defendants 1 and 2 have given the said document to the plaintiff. It shows that the defendants 1 and 2 agreed to execute the sale deed within a period of three months. There is no agreement on the part of the plaintiff to pay the balance of sale consideration within the period mentioned in the said document and take the sale deed. Similarly in Ex. A-2 also we find that the defendants 1 and 2 have given the agreement to the plaintiff. In the said document also the defendants 1 and 2 have agreed to execute the sale deed on or before 17-1-1974 after receiving the balance of Rs. 790/-. Again in the said document also there is no agreement on the part of the plaintiff to pay the balance within the period. It is therefore, clear from the terms that these two documents are only agreements by defendants 1 and 2 agreeing to do something in favour of the plaintiff on receipt of the amounts. But there is no agreement on the part of the plaintiff to do anything in favour of the defendants 1 and 2. From the above it is clear that it is not an agreement between the two parties. It is not a mutual agreement or contract

6. As per Section 2(b) of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 a proposal becomes a promise only when the person to whom the proposal is made signifies his assent thereto and when the proposal is accepted. As per Section 2(e), every promise and every set of prom