SANJAY PURI Vs. RADHEY LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Appeal is directed against the Judgment dated 21.8.2006 whereby the learned Single Judge rejected the Suit filed by the Appellant praying for the Specific Performance of a purported agreement entered into on 16.6.2003. This alleged agreement pertains to the sale of a Ground Floor Flat owned by the Defendant/Respondent.

(2.) The document, on which the Suit is founded, is handwritten, inexorably leading to the conclusion that it was drawn on the spur of the moment. It is reproduced below:-

(3.) In the impugned Order, the learned Single Judge has arrived at the conclusion, after noticing Section 2(h) of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 and Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, that an enforceable contract had been arrived at by the parties. This appears to be predicated on the dialectic that in the said document the property was clearly delineated, the sale consideration was defined, and there was an undeniable acknowledgement of the factum of ' 50,000/- having been received albeit as a "Token Advance". It was also noted by the learned Single Judge that the parties had agreed that vacant possession would be handed over by the Owner/Respondent to the Appellant in October, 2003. The learned Single Judge also found it salient that the Receipt does not contain a covenant to the effect that any formal Agreement to Sell would have to be executed.