PAWAN KUMAR DUTT Vs. SHAKUNTALA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(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 dismissed, although the finding on another issues recorded were in favour of the plaintiffs. The first appeal 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 defendants. All the courts found it difficult to identify the suit property out of the total extent in the absence of boundaries or other specifications. In support of his submission, the learned counsel cited few decisions.

(3.) 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, including 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 S. 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 S. 29 of the Contract Act.