The main legal point established in the judgment is that for an agreement to constitute a concluded contract for specific performance, it must include definite terms, an offer and acceptance, and a prescribed time for performance.

G.M. AKBAR ALI, J.,

1. Appeal filed under Sec.96 of the Central Procedure Code against the judgment and decree made in O.S.No.482 of 2004 dated 03.08.2006 on the file of the learned Additional District Judge Fast Track Court No.I, Chengalpattu

2. The plaintiffs are the appellants. The suit was filed for Specific performance of an alleged sale agreement dated 13.8.1995. The brief facts are as follows:

3. The 1st respondent is the father and the respondents 2 and 3 are the sons. They inherited the suit property under a partition deed dated 17.9.1985. There are three schedules of property and each entitled to 36 cents. The 1st respondent entered into an agreement of sale with the appellants on 13.8.1995 including the properties of respondents 2 and 3 who were minors.

4. The rate was agreed at Rs.20,000/-per cent and the 1st respondent received an advance of Rs.50,000/- on the date of agreement. The agreement was named and styled as `Token advance document for the sale of land' (Nila virkiraya Token advance pathiram).

5. According to the agreement, the 1st respondent must obtain permission from the competent court for the sale of minors' property and after obtaining permission and on verification of records, the appellant is to pay a further sum of Rs.6,00,000/- as advance and execute a sale agreement with usual terms.

6. In HMGOP No.39 of 1996 the learned Principal and District Judge, Chengalpattu passed an order permitting the 1st respondent to effect sale of the minors' property at Rs.3,200/- per cent. This order was passed on 30.4.1996. In the meantime, the appellant had paid a sum of Rs.50,000/- on 2.1.1996, and another sum of Rs.50,000/-on 8.1.1996 to the first respondent.

7. Since the permission was obtained from the Court, the appellants approached the 1st respondent with a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- and demanded execution of the sale deed. As the first respondent evaded a notice was issued on 12.7.1996 by the appellant to receive the said sum of Rs.5,00,000/- and also to complete the sale by receiving the balance sale consideration within four months from the date of receipt of above said amount.

8. The 1st respondent/defendant sent a reply in which he admitted that he entered into an agreement of sale and also admitted the receipt of an advance of Rs.50,000/- on the date of agreement and receipt of Rs.50,000/-each on 2.1.1996 and 8.1.1996.

9. However, it was stated that the sale was not in the interest of minors and therefore, the 1st respondent was not able to comply the demand of notice. The appellants filed a suit in OS No.930 of 1996 in the Court of District Munsif for a permanent injunction restraining the respondents from disposing of the suit property. The suit was resisted by the respondents. Thereafter, the appellants filed the present suit for specific performance of the sale agreement on 13.8.1995.

10. The 1st respondent filed a written statement interalia stating that the alleged agreement dated 13.8.1995 is only an agreement to enter into a sale agreement of the property and it is not a concluded contract. He would admit the execution of such document to sell the suit properties at the rate of Rs.20,000/-per cent. He would also admit the subsequent payments dated 2.1.1996 and 8.1.1996. However, he would state that the appellant himself engaged his own lawyer to file HMGOP No.39 of 1996 and has given a false information by stating the sale price at Rs.3,200/- per cent. He would also allege that the value of the property was more than Rs.30,000/-per cent and the sale of the property is not in the interest of the minors and he is not bound by the agreement dated 13.8.1995 which is not a concluded contract.

11. The 1st respondent had also taken a stand that the present suit was not maintainable under Or.2 Rule 2 CPC as the plaintiff had failed to claim similar relief in O.S.No.930 of 1996 which is the earlier suit and therefore the subsequent relief is barred.

12. The defendants 2 and 3 represented by their gu