A vague agreement in a contract regarding property description renders the suit for specific performance unenforceable.

Order

1. The plaintiffs are in appeal before us. They filed a suit for specific performance of an agreement in respect of a land measuring 4 bighas 2 biswas out of Khasra No. 608. The trial court, in the light of the pleadings of the parties, raised several issues. Issue 7(A) dealt with as to whether the agreement, on which the suit for specific performance was based, was vague, as is mentioned in Para 20 of the amended written statement. The trial court held that the suit for specific performance could not be decreed for want of certainty as to the description of the suit property. In that view, the suit was dis- missed, although the finding on another issues recorded were in favour of the plaintiffs. The first ap- peal filed by the plaintiffs was also dismissed affirming the findings of fact recorded by the trial court on Issue 7(A). The matter did not rest at that. The plaintiffs filed second appeal before the High Court. The High Court did not find any valid ground or good reason to take a different view on the concurrent findings of fact recorded by both the courts below. Hence this appeal.

2. The learned counsel for the appellants strongly contended that all the courts committed an error in dismissing the suit of the plaintiffs. According to him, from the suit agreement it is clear that the total area of land in Khasra No. 608 is 12 bighas 1 biswa, out of which, the defendants agreed to sell only 4 bighas and 2 biswas. The property in question also included a house built therein. The learned counsel urged that it was possible to grant a decree for specific performance, having regard to the description given in the agreement itself that the remaining area was available with the defen- dants. All the courts found it difficult to identify the suit property out of the total extent in the ab- sence of boundaries or other specifications. In support of his submission, the learned counsel cited few decisions.

3. In Kandamath Cine Enterprises (P) Ltd. v. John Philipose AIR 1990 Ker 198 it is stated that throughout the law of contract there is respect for the sanctity of contract and the need to give effect to the reasonable expectation of an honest man. It is important that law ought to uphold rather than destroy apparent contracts. Solemn contracts entered into between parties are not to be readily de- clared invalid for uncertainty or vagueness.

4. Looking to the facts of that case, as is clear from the description made in para 8, the property was identifiable, which was marked as CXJK, on the basis of the material that was placed on record, in- cluding the report of the Commissioner. In the same judgment, in para 7 it is stated that the plea that a particular contract is void for uncertainty under Section 29 of the Contract Act is a question of law and if the terms of the contract are vague and uncertain, the contract itself would be void and unenforceable under Section 29 of the Contract Act.

5. On the facts found in the present case, the courts have concluded that the identity of the suit property was not established. In that, the terms of the agreement as regards the description of the property are uncertain and vague.

6. In Kartar Singh v. Harjinder Singh (1990) 3 SCC 517 it is held that where a joint property is sold by one co-sharer, such an agreement could be enforced to the extent of the share of the person who executed the document. It is ruled that if there is a difficulty in demarcating the share, the decree to the extent of his share can be granted and the property can be carved out by filing a suit for partition.

7. But the position in the present case is different; that a portion out of the total larger extent was agreed