SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1999 Supreme(Mad) 908

High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S. SUBRAMANI
M.M. Ragunathan
Versus
M.M. Basirulla (Died) & Others
A.S.No.435 of 1984
Decided On : 07-09-1999

Advocates:
S.P. Subramaniam, for Appellant. K. Sarvabhaumanof M/s. Sarvabhauman Associates, for Respondents.

A contract for the sale of property as one lot is generally considered indivisible, and specific performance cannot be ordered against some of the sellers only.

Headnote:

CONTRACT - SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE - SALE OF PROPERTY - AGREEMENT FOR SALE - EXECUTION OF FORMAL AGREEMENT - INTENTION OF PARTIES - DIVISIBLE OR INDIVISIBLE CONTRACT - SECTION 12 OF THE INDIAN CONTRACT ACT, 1872.

Fact of the Case:

Plaintiff entered into an oral agreement with defendants 1 to 5 for the purchase of two shop rooms. The agreement was subject to the execution of a formal agreement for sale. Plaintiff paid an advance of Rs.10,000 and obtained the signatures of defendants 1 and 5 on the formal agreement. However, defendants 2 to 4 refused to sign the agreement. Plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance of the contract.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that there was no concluded contract on the date of the alleged oral agreement. The parties intended to execute a formal agreement for sale, and the execution of the formal agreement was a condition precedent to the formation of a binding contract. The court also held that the contract was indivisible and that specific performance could not be ordered against defendants 1 and 5 alone.

Issues: 1. Whether there was a concluded contract on the date of the alleged oral agreement. 2. Whether the execution of the formal agreement was a condition precedent to the formation of a binding contract. 3. Whether the contract was divisible or indivisible.

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that there was no concluded contract on the date of the alleged oral agreement based on the following factors: a. The parties intended to execute a formal agreement for sale. b. The execution of the formal agreement was a condition precedent to the formation of a binding contract. 2. The court held that the contract was indivisible based on the following factors: a. The property was described as one block in the agreement for sale. b. The consideration was not apportioned among the sharers. c. The parties intended to sell the property as one unit.

Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the judgment and decree of the lower court.

Judgment :

Plaintiff in O.S.No.94 of 1979, on the file of Subordinate Judge, Karur, is the appellant.

2. Suit properties which are two shop rooms originally belonged to one Syed Ahamad Sahib, and on his death the properties devolved on his son Syed Gulam Rasool Sahib and two daughters Isathunnissa Begum (5th defendant) and Sathunnissa Begum. A partition was effected between the legal heirs of the original acquirer, and the suit properties were allotted to the two daughters. Sathunnissa Begum died, and her share in the property has devolved on defendants 1 to 4. 1st defendant is the husband of Sathunnissa Begum. Defendants 2 and 3 are the sons and fourth defendant is the daughter of Sathunnissa Begum.

3. Plaintiff came to know that the schedule shop rooms are for sale, and sometime during the third week of October, 1978, along with one broker Murugavel, he contacted defendants 1 and 5. They informed the plaintiff that they were willing to sell the suit properties and they further represented that defendants 2 to 4 also may not have any objection for the sale at a price fixed by them. With a view to ascertain the views of defendants 2 to 4, plaintiff and the broker approached each one of defendants 2 to 4 and when they were informed about the talks which plaintiff had with defendants 1 and 5, defendants 2 to 4 expressed their willingness to sell their respective shares along with defendants 1 and 5, and since first defendant is managing their behalf, they are willing to accept the price that was agreed by him. Plaintiff and P.W.2 approached defendants 1 and 5 for further negotiation, and it was agreed that the price of the suit property was Rs.48,600; advance of Rs.10,000 will be paid; sale deed should be executed free of all encumbrances within two months; an agreement will be written at first and registered sale deed will be executed thereafter. Plaintiff and P.W.2 met defendants 2 to 4 at their respective residence to inform about the terms of agreement, price fixed and time of execution. All the defendants accepted the terms and agreed to execute an agreement for sale and also for execution of the sale deed. This, according to the plaintiff, was effected on 110. 1978. Plaintiff further says that when all the defendants confirmed the terms, there was a concluded oral agreement for sale of the property. On the basis of the terms, plaintiff purchased necessary stamp papers for writing a formal deed of sale agreement on 110. 1978, and went defendants 2 to 4, plaintiff and the broker approached each one of defendants 2 to 4 and when they were informed about the talks which plaintiff had with defendants 1 and 5, defendants 2 to 4 expressed their willingness to sell their respective shares along with defendants 1 and 5, and since first defendant is managing on their behalf, they are willing to accept the price that was agreed by him. Plaintiff and P.W.2 approached defendants 1 and 5 for further negotiation, and it was agreed that the price of the suit property was Rs.48,600 advance of Rs.10,000 will be paid; sale deed should be executed free of all encumbrances within two months; an agreement will be written at first and registered sale deed will be executed thereafter. Plaintiff and P.W.2 met defendants 2 to 4 at their respective residence to inform about the terms of agreement, price fixed and time of execution. All the defendants accepted the terms and agreed to execute an agreement for sale and also for execution of the sale deed. This, according to the plaintiff, was effected on 110. 1978. Plaintiff further says that when all the defendants confirmed the terms, there was a concluded oral agreement for sale of the property. On the basis of the terms, plaintiff purchased necessary stamp papers for writing a formal deed of sale agreement on 110. 1978, and went with broker and document writer Muthusamy Chettiar of Karur to Palakode on 210. 1978. A formal agreement embodying the terms of agreement was written, on 210. 1978 in the






























































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top