GOVIND LAXMAN GOKHALE Vs. HIRACHAND MANCHARAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal from the decision of Marten J. dismissing the suit which the plaintiff had filed praying that the defendant might be ordered to specifically perform an alleged agreement dated the 28th November 1917 and to do all acts necessary for carrying out his part of the agreement.

(2.) The facts are not in dispute and the evidence in the case is purely documentary.

(3.) On the 28th November 1917 the plaintiff and defendant drew up two writings in Gujarati which are Exts. A and A I in the case. It is admitted that for all intents and purposes the documents are in identical terms. Exh. A was signed by the defendant and Exh. AI by the plaintiff. The plaintiff contended that those two documents constituted a complete agreement for the sale by the defendant to the plaintiff of a certain property for Rs. 2,15,000. Looking at the documents this would at first sight appear obvious. They contain the names of the parties, the description of the property to be sold, the price to be paid, a provision regarding the division of the costs of the conveyance, etc., the conditions that the seller must make out a marketable title, and that the vendor must get the signature of a certain adopted son on the sale deed, a provision that the seller has not to pay brokerage, and the time for completion. Finally each party writes I have given and taken from you the agreement to the above effect of my own free will and pleasure. The main defence is contained in para 2 of the written statement. The defendant says that the Gujarati writings signed by the plaintiff and defendant respectively were merely the terms agreed on as a basis for the contract and not the contract itself which was to be made through a Vakil as stated in Clause 1 of the Gujarati writing.