MST CHINTI Vs. RATTAN DEVI ETC

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The facts giving rise to this second appeal by Chinti (defendant No. 1) who is the wife of Sadhu Ram (defendant No. 2) are these. In 1957 defendant No. 1 brought a plot of land measuring 398 sq. yards and situated in Taraf Perubonda, a locality of Ludhiana town. On the 15th of December, 1959, defendant No. 2, entered into an agreement (Exhibit P. 1) on behalf of defendant No. 1 with Rattan Devi plaintiff for the sale to the latter of an area measuring 117 sq. yards and forming part of the said plot, at the rate of Rs. 4.50 per sq. yard. According to the agreement, the area to be transferred to the plaintiff was located adjacent to the house of her husband Mukhtiar Chand. The agreement stated that defendant No. 2 had received a sum of Rs. 150/- as earnest money and stipulated that if defendant No. 1 failed to have a sale deed registered, the plaintiff would be entitled to have the agreement specifically performed.

(2.) The concurrent finding given by the two Courts below on issue No. 1 is a finding of fact and must be affirmed inasmuch as it is not based on any misconstruction or misappreciation of evidence. Besides, the reasons given by the two Courts below in support of that finding are cogent and I fully agree therewith.

(3.) At one stage of the agreement I was inclined to think that agreement Exhibit P. 1 was void in view of the provisions of Section 29 of the Indian Contract Act and, therefore, not capable of being specifically performed inasmuch as its meaning was not certain or capable of being made certain. The reason for my holding this opinion was that the precise location of the area measuring 117 sq. yards agreed to be sold under it was not given with any precision. A bare reading of the agreement no doubt makes it appear that the description of the land agreed to be sold suffers from a patent ambiguity which the plaintiff could not be allowed to clear up by extrinsic evidence. However, the matter is not as simple as that. One of the sides of the area agreed to be sold is mentioned in the agreement as being adjacent to the house of Mukhtiar Chand, husband of the plaintiff. The extent of the area also is certain, namely, 117 sq. yards. The only uncertainty from which the description of the area suffers is that its shape (i.e., whether it is circular, triangular, quadrangular, etc.) and the number and size of the various sides, if any, encircling it, are not specified. The question then arises : Is this uncertainty of such a type as would render the agreement necessarily void ? In my opinion, the answer to this question must be given in the negative. The law, in my view, allows ambiguities of the type from which agreement P. 1 suffers to be cleared up by evidence. As laid down in Section 96 of the Indian Evidence Act :