AMIT MONDAL SINCE DECEASED REPRESENTED BY HIS LEGAL HEIRS & REPRESENTATIVES Vs. PANNALAL DAS & ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This First Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 20th July, 2007 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), 1st Court, Howrah in Title Suit No. 45 of 2003 at the instance of the plaintiff/appellant.

(2.) By the impugned judgment and decree, the plaintiff's suit for specific performance of contract was decreed in part. Relief for specific performance of contract prayed for by the plaintiff, was refused by the learned Trial Judge on the ground that the registered agreement for sale which was sought to be enforced by the plaintiff by the said suit was not signed by the plaintiff (the purchaser). The learned Trial Judge held that such a unilateral agreement for sale is incapable of enforcement through a suit for specific performance of contract. While coming to the said conclusion, the learned Trial Judge relied upon two decisions of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of S.M. Gopal Chetty v. Raman Alias Natesan & Ors. reported in AIR 1998 Madras 169 and in the case of P. Gajapathi v. Election Commission of India reported in AIR 2001 Madras 447.

(3.) However, the learned Trial Judge decided all other issues in favour of the plaintiff. The learned Trial Judge held that the defendant no.1 is the owner of the suit property. The learned Trial Judge also held that execution of the deed of agreement for sale by the defendant no.1 is also admitted by the defendant no.1. Acceptance of the earnest money by the defendant no.1 from the plaintiff was also held to be admitted by the defendant no.1. In spite of such findings recorded by the learned Trial Judge in the impugned judgment, the learned Trial Judge did not allow the plaintiff's prayer for specific performance of contract as the contract was unilateral and according to the learned Trial Judge such a unilateral contract which was not signed by the plaintiff (purchaser) is incapable of enforcement through a suit for specific performance of contract. While coming to such conclusion the learned Trial Judge also held by relying upon the provision contained in Section 15 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 that a contract can be enforced only by a party to the contract and since the plaintiff is not a party to the contract he cannot enforce the said contract.