The main legal point established in the judgment is that a contract to sell at a reasonable price is binding and capable of specific performance, even without the explicit fixation of the price. Additionally, the court clarified the transferability of the leasehold property with permission.

Judgement

Panigrahi, J. :- This appeal arises out of a suit for specific performance of a contract to sell a plot of homestead land bearing plot No. 1051 within Jemmabandi 98 of Cuttack Khasamahal. Four annas share in the suit plot belonged to Raikrishna Mohanty, deft. 2 and the rest belonged to applt. 1, Rajakishor Mohanty. Deft. 2 also owned in his own right the adjoining plot of land bearing No. 1052 within Jammabandi 97. Deft. 2 wanted to sell plot No. 1052 applied to the Khasamahal authorities for permission to sell. Among the objectors were deft. 1 (Dr. Banabehari Patnaik), pltf. 2 (Sachidananda Mohanty) son of pltf. 1 and some other persons. The Khasamahal enquiry was posted to 6-4-1941 when deft. 2 filed Ex. 5, which is a petn. of compromise alleged to have been arrived at between the parties. The main clauses of this compromise are that pltf. 2, Sachidananda should withdraw his objection to the sale of plot No. 1052 and allow deft. 1 to purchase it from deft. 2 and that deft. 2 should sell to Sachidananda (pltf. 2) his four annas share in plot No. 1052. It is said that deft. 2 went back upon this compromise and sold plot No. 1051 to deft. 1 on 27-6-41 for a sum of Rs. 500. The pltfs. sued for specific performance of the agreement for sale made by deft. 2 in favour of pltf. 2.

2. The learned Munsif who tried the suit decreed the suit in pltfs favour and held that the deft. 1 was not a bona fide purchaser for value. On appeal to the Ct. of the Dist. J. by deft. 1 the judgment of the learned Munsif was reversed on the ground that there was no completed contract on 5-4-1941 which could be specifically enforced and that it was void for uncertainty as there was no stipulation about the price to be paid. Specific performance of the contract was, therefore, refused.

3. In second appeal two contentions have been raised on behalf of the pltf. applts. firstly, that the lower appellate Ct. committed errors of record which vitiated its judgment which cannot consequently be upheld; and secondly that the price for the sale of the plot had been settled prior to 5-4-1941 the day on which Ex. 5 was actually drafted and that even otherwise the Ct. can imply a term in the contract to the effect that a reasonable price should be paid.

4. The pltfs case is that the preliminary negotiations for a compromise were started on the 27th or 28th March 1941 at the house of Sri Bichitrananda Mohanty, viz , D.W. 3 who is the father-in-law of deft. 2 and that the price was sattled at that time Pltf. 2 who was then at Jaipur was intimated of the agreement and was asked to confirm the same. Pltf. 2 it is said came to Cuttack on the 5th April and confirmed the same. The pltf. relied upon the evidence of P. W. 5, a clerk of Sri Bichitrananda Mohanty. The appellate Ct. rejected this witnesss evidence on the ground that the evidence did not disclose that he was an eye-witness to the discussion said to have taken place on 27th and 28th of March. The witness clearly stated that the compromise petn. was drafted 7 or 8 days after the compromise talk took place and that he was present when Ex. 5 was drafted, From this statement made in cross examination the learned Dist. J. inferred that the witness was not present at the compromise talk which took place 7 or 8 days before the petn. was actually drafted and observed :

"He has nowhere stated affirmatively that he was present when the preliminary negotiation for compromise took place."

The witness said in the course of his chief examination that the consideration was fixed at Rs. 500 or a little more than that and that it was settled at the house of Bichitrananda Babu and that be was present there at the time. The witness was positive that he was present at the meeting where the compromise was settled and in cross examination he stated that this talk took place 7 or 8 days before Ex. 5 was drafted. In cross-examination he was specifically asked about his presence on the day Ex. 5 was drafted and he answered accordingl