Mental capacity and contractual certainty support specific performance unless real unfairness or hardship is shown.

A contract is not invalid merely because the vendor was aged or infirm if the evidence shows that the vendor understood the nature and consequences of the transaction and acted with sufficient awareness. Weakness of intellect, without proof of incapacity, unfair advantage, or absence of independent advice, is insufficient to avoid the bargain. An agreement is also sufficiently certain where the price is fixed by an ascertainable method and the law can supply ordinary sale terms. Later offers of a higher price do not by themselves establish hardship or defeat specific performance. The bargain remains enforceable unless real unfairness or legally relevant hardship is proved.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the vendor was of sound mind and capable of understanding the contract when the bainapatra was executed; (ii) whether the agreement was vague or uncertain, or otherwise unfit for specific performance on the ground of hardship or inadequacy of price.

Issue (i): whether the vendor was of sound mind and capable of understanding the contract when the bainapatra was executed.

Analysis: The evidence was assessed with reference to the vendor's condition at the date of the transaction. Although age, illness and failing strength were established, the material circumstances showed that the transaction was negotiated openly, with the assistance of advisers, relatives, officers and legal assistance, and that the vendor understood the bargain and its effect. Mere weakness of intellect, without proof that the vendor could not understand the nature and consequences of the act, was insufficient to invalidate the contract. The facts also negatived any want of independent advice or any taking of unfair advantage.

Conclusion: The vendor was found to be of sound mind for the purpose of the transaction, and the contract was not invalid on the ground of mental incapacity or weakness of intellect.

Issue (ii): whether the agreement was vague or uncertain, or otherwise unfit for specific performance on the ground of hardship or inadequacy of price.

Analysis: The price was not left at large but was fixed by a definite method tied to the net income of the property, with a workable basis for adjustment if the underlying figures varied. The reference to necessary stipulations did not make the bargain incomplete, because the law could supply the usual incidents of a sale deed. As to hardship, the bargain was shown to have been made openly and for an adequate price, and the later emergence of a higher offer by others did not by itself justify refusal of specific performance. No material was established to show that the agreed price was unfair or that the vendor had been improperly disadvantaged.

Conclusion: The agreement was sufficiently certain and specifically enforceable, and no sufficient hardship was proved to defeat specific performance.

Final Conclusion: The contract was upheld and specific performance was granted, with the plaintiffs succeeding in the appeal.

Ratio Decidendi: A contract entered into by a person who, despite age or infirmity, was capable of understanding the transaction and forming a rational judgment, and whose bargain is fixed by an ascertainable method, is specifically enforceable unless real unfairness, incapacity, or legally relevant hardship is proved.

---