Sham Singh Vs. Waryam Singh - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/632346
SubjectContract
CourtPunjab and Haryana High Court
Decided OnNov-08-1993
Case NumberLetter Patent Appeal No. 924 of 1985
Judge R.P. Sethi and; H.S. Bedi, JJ.
Reported in(1994)107PLR93
ActsContract Act, 1872 - Sections 29
AppellantSham Singh
RespondentWaryam Singh
Appellant Advocate J.R. Mittal, Sr. Adv. and; Baldev Singh, Adv.
Respondent Advocate V.K. Jain, Sr. Adv.,; J.L. Malhotra and; B.S. Chawla
DispositionAppeal dismissed
Cases Referred and Phuljhari Devi v. Mithai Lal
Excerpt:
- r.p. sethi, j.1. the plaintiff-respondent filed a suit for possession by specific performance of agreement dated 8.4.1968 in respect of land fully described in the title of the plaint which was resisted by the appellant herein on various grounds resulting in the framing of the following issues by the trial court.1. 'whether the defendant executed the agreement dated 8.4.1968 in favour of plaintiff and received rs. 30,000/- at that time as the sale price from the plaintiff ?2. if issue no. 1 is proved, whether the said agreement was got executed by undue influence, misrepresentation and fraud?3. whether agreement dated 8.4.1968 is vague illegal and unenforceable?4. whether the plaintiff has been always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract?5. whether the defendant has committed the breach of the contract?6. relief.'2. the parties entered upon the evidence and trial court vide its judgment and decree dated 28.8.1974 dismissed the suit of the plaintiff mainly on the ground that the agreement executed between the parties was vague and hit by the provisions of section 29 of the indian contract act, 1872 (for short the 'act') which could not be enforced. in appeal, the finding of the trial court on issue no. 3 was set aside by holding that the agreement of sale was neither uncertain nor void and was clearly enforceable. the defendant feeling aggrieved of the judgment of the learned single judge has failed this appeal mainly on the ground that the finding on issue no. 3 of the learned single judge was unwarranted and contrary to the settled propositions of law.3. we have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.4. the learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the agreement was got executed by the plaintiff by exercising undue influence, mis-representation and fraud which was not enforceable in law. the argument of the learned counsel cannot be accepted at this stage when both the trial court and the learned single judge has concurrently decided issue no. 2 against the defendant-appellant. the learned counsel for the appellant has not seriously contested the findings returned by the two courts on issue nos. 1, 4 and 5. he has, however, vehemently argued that the learned single judge has not correctly decided issue no. 3. in support of his reliance he has referred to the judgments reported as jai gobind singh and anr. v. bagat lal singh, a.i.r. 1950 patna 445, bhagwan singh v. nawab mohammad iftikhar ali khan, (1983-1) l.l.r. 95 and phuljhari devi v. mithai lal, a.i.r. 1971 allahabad 494.5. section 29 of the act provides that agreements the meaning of which is not certain, or capable of being made certain, are void. this section contemplates that the meaning of the agreement should be clear on the face of it and not capable to be interpreted in any other manner than the one clearly understood by the parties. where reasonable meaning can be gathered from the agreement, the contract cannot be declared to be void for uncertainty, a reference to the agreement is desirable at this stage to decide as to whether the same was uncertain and not capable of being acted upon as has been argued. it is contended that as the properties were not specified in the agreement the same were to be held to be vague and ambiguous being not enforceable. after going through the agreement, ex.p.1, we have come to the conclusion that the agreement was clear and unambiguous so far as the agricultural properties of the defendant-appellant are concerned. the defendant was apparently an educated person of forty years when he executed the agreement to sell alongwith the power of attorneys in favour of the plaintiff. both the parties understood the implications, contents and the subject matter of the agreement which was subsequently sought to be enforced through the court of law by way of a suit for specific performance of the contract. the judgements relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant does not in any way support his case on facts. the learned single judge has rightly held that the agreement was not vague or ambiguous and that the trial court was not justified in dismissing the suit filed by the plaintiff- respondent.6. we do not find any merit in this appeal which is dismissed. the parties are left to bear their own costs throughout.
Judgment:

R.P. Sethi, J.

1. The plaintiff-respondent filed a suit for possession by specific performance of agreement dated 8.4.1968 in respect of land fully described in the title of the plaint which was resisted by the appellant herein on various grounds resulting in the framing of the following issues by the trial Court.

1. 'Whether the defendant executed the agreement dated 8.4.1968 in favour of Plaintiff and received Rs. 30,000/- at that time as the sale price from the plaintiff ?

2. If issue No. 1 is proved, whether the said agreement was got executed by undue influence, misrepresentation and fraud?

3. Whether agreement dated 8.4.1968 is vague illegal and unenforceable?

4. Whether the plaintiff has been always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract?

5. Whether the defendant has committed the breach of the contract?

6. Relief.'

2. The parties entered upon the evidence and trial court vide its judgment and decree dated 28.8.1974 dismissed the suit of the plaintiff mainly on the ground that the agreement executed between the parties was vague and hit by the provisions of Section 29 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 (for short the 'Act') which could not be enforced. In appeal, the finding of the trial Court on issue No. 3 was set aside by holding that the agreement of sale was neither uncertain nor void and was clearly enforceable. The defendant feeling aggrieved of the judgment of the learned Single Judge has failed this appeal mainly on the ground that the finding on issue No. 3 of the learned Single Judge was unwarranted and contrary to the settled propositions of law.

3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the agreement was got executed by the plaintiff by exercising undue influence, mis-representation and fraud which was not enforceable in law. The argument of the learned counsel cannot be accepted at this stage when both the trial Court and the learned Single Judge has concurrently decided issue No. 2 against the defendant-appellant. The learned counsel for the appellant has not seriously contested the findings returned by the two courts on issue Nos. 1, 4 and 5. He has, however, vehemently argued that the learned Single Judge has not correctly decided issue No. 3. In support of his reliance he has referred to the judgments reported as Jai Gobind Singh and Anr. v. Bagat Lal Singh, A.I.R. 1950 Patna 445, Bhagwan Singh v. Nawab Mohammad Iftikhar Ali Khan, (1983-1) L.L.R. 95 and Phuljhari Devi v. Mithai Lal, A.I.R. 1971 Allahabad 494.

5. Section 29 of the Act provides that agreements the meaning of which is not certain, or capable of being made certain, are void. This section contemplates that the meaning of the agreement should be clear on the face of it and not capable to be interpreted in any other manner than the one clearly understood by the parties. Where reasonable meaning can be gathered from the agreement, the contract cannot be declared to be void for uncertainty, A reference to the agreement is desirable at this stage to decide as to whether the same was uncertain and not capable of being acted upon as has been argued. It is contended that as the properties were not specified in the agreement the same were to be held to be vague and ambiguous being not enforceable. After going through the agreement, Ex.P.1, we have come to the conclusion that the agreement was clear and unambiguous so far as the agricultural properties of the defendant-appellant are concerned. The defendant was apparently an educated person of forty years when he executed the agreement to sell alongwith the power of attorneys in favour of the plaintiff. Both the parties understood the implications, contents and the subject matter of the agreement which was subsequently sought to be enforced through the court of law by way of a suit for specific performance of the contract. The judgements relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant does not in any way support his case on facts. The learned Single Judge has rightly held that the agreement was not vague or ambiguous and that the trial court was not justified in dismissing the suit filed by the plaintiff- respondent.

6. We do not find any merit in this appeal which is dismissed. The parties are left to bear their own costs throughout.