RAJAMMAL Vs. R. GOPALASWAMI NAIDU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE pltf. is the applt. in the second appeal. She instituted the suit out of which this second appeal arises for specific performance of an agreement to reconvey executed by the deft. in favour of the pltf. on 27 -9 -1943, Ex. P. 1. The deft. obtained conveyance of property under Ex. D. 1 dated 24 -9 -1943 for a stated consideration of Rs. 1500. The suit was resisted by the deft. on various grounds the chief of which & which survive in this second appeal are, that the contract is vague as regards the amount of consideration & also the time of performance & that it ia unenforceable as it offends the rule against perpetuity. It was also contended that, in any event, the pltf. should not have been granted a decree for specific performance in the exercise of the discretionary power vested in the Ct. to decree specific performance of contracts, recognised under Section 22, Specific Relief Act. The trial Ct. negatived all the contentions urged by the deft. & decreed the suit for specific performance. The deft. appealed against the decree to the Dist. J. The Dist. J. agreed with the Dist. Munsif in holding that the agreement to reconvey was not uncertain & vague & that it was capable of specific performance, but in view of certain circumstances which the learned Judge had adverted in para. 11 of his judgment he was of opinion that it was a fit case in which the discretion of the Ct. should not be exercised in favour of the pltf. by granting a decree for specific performance. He, however, opined that it was a fit case in which compensation should be awarded under Section 19, Specific Relief Act, granted leave to amend the plaint & remitted the case to the trial Ct. for disposal on the amended plaint after framing the necessary issues.

(2.) THIS second appeal is by the pltf. against the decree of the learned Dist. J. To complete the narrative regarding the coarse of this litigation it may be mentioned that after remand the suit seems to have been dismissed for default of the pltf. & an appln. for restoration of the suit made by the pltf. was also dismissed, by the Dist Mansif, & the order of the Dist. Munsif was confirmed on appeal by the Dist. J. The pltf. preferred civil revn. petn. No. 1338 of 1948 against the order of the Dist. J. confirming the order of dismissal for default. That civil revn. petn. also is posted for disposal along with this second appeal.

(3.) IT would be convenient now to consider whether there is any substance in the contention of the respondent that the contract was void for uncertainty, uncertainty as regards the time & uncertainty as regards the consideration. The contract is in the following terms as evidenced by Ex. P. 1. the counterpart by the deft. in favour of the pltf.