An agreement for specific performance must specify the property details to be enforceable under the Transfer of Property Act.

J U D G M E N T

This appeal arises out of the judgment and decree in A.S No.104/2018 on the files of the District Court, Thalassery, which reversed the decree for specific performance granted in favour of the appellant / plaintiff.

2. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of the appeal are as follows:-

The plaintiff filed a suit as O.S No.16/2007, for specific performance of the agreement of sale dated 15.08.2006. It was stated that the plaintiff had agreed to purchase the balance extent of property held by the defendants after the assignment of 14.03 cents by the defendants in their favour in the year 2005 as per assignment deed No.149/2005. The period for performance of the contract was fixed as three months and the centage value of the property was fixed as Rs.12,000/- per land, for 14 cents. Since the agreement was executed on 15.08.2006, was a holiday and therefore the document was executed in a white paper. The non-willingness of the defendants to performance the contract led to be issuance of the notice dated 08.11.2006, requiring the defendants to perform the contract. Since there is a refusal, the plaintiff filed the suit. The defendants resisted the suit by contending that there is no agreement as contended by the plaintiff and if at all there was an agreement, it was a forged agreement. Thus, the execution of the agreement was denied. In order to prove the execution of the agreement, the plaintiff examined witnesses as PW1 to PW3, who deposed that they have seen the 1^st defendant and her brother execute the agreement. Based on their oral testimony, the trial court granted a decree for specific performance, and directed the defendants to execute the sale deed in respect of the plaint schedule property, after receiving the balance sale consideration of Rs.1,65,000/-. Aggrieved, the defendants preferred A.S No.104/2008 before the District Court, Thalassery. The First Appellate Court on re-appreciation of evidence came to the conclusion that since the agreement does not contained the details of the property to be sold, the execution of the sale deed is suspicious. Accordingly, reversed the decree granted in favour of the appellant and allowed the appeal by judgment dated 29.06.2013 and hence the present appeal.

3. On 31.07.2013, while admitting this appeal, this Court framed the following substantial questions of law for consideration:-

(i) If there is a written contract whether the court is not bounded to find out therefrom the acceptance of the parties executing a particular contract in view of the decision of the Supreme Court reported in AIR

1976 SC 2108?

(ii) Whether the findings of the appellate court that the details of the properties are not mentioned in Ext.A1 agreement is a bar for decreeing a suit for specific performance?

(iii) Whether the view taken by the lower appellate court that the plaintiff should have proved the measurement for getting a decree for specific performance, is sustainable?

4. Heard Shri.K.Ramakumar, the learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri.Shehin S., the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Shri.R.Surendran, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

5. Shri.K.Ramakumar, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant contended that the execution of Ext.A1 agreement in an unstamped paper have no consequences. There is sufficient explanations given by the plaintiff as well as PW2 and PW3 to convince the trial court with regard to the genuineness of Ext.A1 agreement. It is further pointed out that once Ext.A1 agreement is proved, the First Appellate Court could not have held that the execution of the agreement itself is suspicious. A