SREEKUMAR M.K. Vs. RAMADASAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) It is now well accepted as a fundamental premise that a contract for sale can be ordered to be specifically performed only if its terms provide substantial degree of certainty and only if they are capable of clear, precise and definite understanding and comprehension. The Specific Relief Act, 1963 (for short, 'the Act'), under Sec. 20 thereof, expounds the jurisdiction of a court to decree specific performance as being discretionary and provides that a court is not bound to grant such relief merely because it is lawful to do so. The court is bound to act in a sound and reasonable manner, guided by judicial principles and on considerations of fairness and reasonableness.

(2.) The facts that are involved in this case present an interesting situation. Even though the litigating parties have entered into a contract for sale of property, the agreement between them shows no consensus as to the actual extent of land sought to be dealt with and sold under it. The court below, therefore, declined to grant a decree of specific performance holding that in the absence of clarity and definitude in the contract as to the extent of land sought to be conveyed, it would not be justified in granting a decree for specific performance under Sec. 20 of the Act.

(3.) The appellant has challenged the judgment and decree of the court below in this appeal and we have been called upon to decide whether the court below was right in doing so.