(1.) This is an appeal by the defendants against the judgment of the 1st Additional Judicial Commissioner of Chotanagpur reversing a decision of the Additional Subordinate Judge of the same place.
(2.) The suit was for specific performance of a contract in respect of some property in the town of Ranchi. It was alleged that Tafazul Karim had contracted with the plaintiff on the 23rd June, 1940 to sell 16 annas interest in a house for Rs. 6,000/- representing that the house belonged to him and his wife. He took Rs. 100/- as earnest money. A period of three years was fixed for the performance of the contract. Later on this contract was cancelled and subsequently on the 5th November, 1941, there was a fresh oral contract between the same parties under which it was agreed between them that the plaintiff would first take sale deeds from Musammat Latifan, Bashir, Sharfuddin and the Municipality of Ranchi in respect of their shares in the house in dispute and thereafter the plaintiff would take sale deed from the defendants for Rs. 1,750/-, which was the price fixed for their share in the house, namely, 4 annas 8 pies. On the 9th November, 1941, 14th November, 1941 and 26th November, 1941 the plaintiff took three sale-deeds from Musammat Latifan, Bashir and Sharfuddfn, but so far as the share of the Ranchi Municipality was concerned, he took the sale deed on the 22nd February, 1947. Thereafter he asked the defendants to execute the sale deed in respect of their share but they did not carry out their part of the contract and then the plaintiff filed this suit on the 2nd February, 1949.
(3.) The main defence relevant for the purpose of this appeal was that the defendants denied the execution of the verbal contract and resisted the claim of the specific performance on the ground that there had been inordinate delay, that the agreement was uncertain and that there was no mutuality in respect of this contract and, therefore, it was not specifically enforceable against the defendants.