GOVIND LAXMAN GOKHALE Vs. HARICHAND MANCHARAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an action for specific performance of an alleged contract dated 28th November 1917 for the sale by the defendant to the plaintiff of a property at Grant Road for Rs. 2,15,000. The defence is that there was no concluded contract, but merely an agreement to enter into a contract, which in law amounts to nothing. The point is that in the document sued on, there is a reference to a further document being executed, and the question is whether that reference prevents the document sued on being an enforceable contract.

(2.) The document sued on is in duplicate, but as each duplicate is in the first person, the words of each part are not precisely the same. There are also some other differences in the precise wording of the two duplicates which I will consider later on. Both duplicates are in Gujarati. Taking the duplicate, Exh. A, signed by the defendant, it ran thus: To Govind Laxman Gokhale. Given in writing by Harichand Mancharam. To wit. What is written is as follows. I agree to sell you for Rs. two lacs and fifteen thousand my immoveable property near Play House at Grant Road....

(3.) Then follows a formal description of the property. Then the document proceeds: The conditions in respect thereof are as follows :--(1) The bargain paper for the sale of the said immoveable property shall be made through a Vakil within two days from this date and at the time of making the bargain paper I am to take from you by way of earnest money in respect thereof Rs. 10600, that is to say, you are to pay the same to me and as regards Rs. two lacs and five thousand being the balance you are to pay the same to me at the time of the execution of the sale deed by me.