2009 (2) TMI 884 - HC - Indian Laws

Court rejects Plaint, advises pursuing claims in pending partition Suit. Memorandum of Understanding uncertainties prevent specific enforcement.

M. Gnanasambandam Versus M. Raja Appar

The Court allowed the Application for rejection of the Plaint under Order 7, Rule 11, C.P.C., finding that the Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) could not ... - Issues Involved:1. Rejection of Plaint under Order 7, Rule 11, C.P.C.2. Specific performance of a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU).3. Applicability of the Specific Relief Act, 1963.4. Enforceability of family arrangements.5. Partition and separate possession of property.Detailed Analysis:1. Rejection of Plaint under Order 7, Rule 11, C.P.C.:The first defendant sought rejection of the Plaint under Order 7, Rule 11, C.P.C., arguing that there was no cause of action for the Suit and that the Suit was barred by law under the Specific Relief Act, 1963. The Court noted that the Suit was for specific performance of a MoU dated 24.9.2005 and not for partition, and therefore, the maintainability of the Suit had to be examined in light of the objections raised.2. Specific Performance of a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU):The MoU outlined that each party was entitled to a 1/4th share in the property and agreed to joint development with a builder. However, the MoU lacked specifics on crucial aspects such as the method of choosing the builder, the terms of the agreement, and the allocation of the constructed area. The Court found that the MoU was uncertain and indeterminate in several material aspects, making it incapable of specific enforcement.3. Applicability of the Specific Relief Act, 1963:The Court examined whether the MoU could be specifically enforced under the Specific Relief Act, 1963, and Section 29 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. The Court concluded that the MoU could not be specifically enforced due to its inherent uncertainties. Section 12 of the Specific Relief Act, which generally prohibits specific performance of part of a contract, was particularly relevant. The Court held that the MoU fell under the exceptions where the part left unperformed forms a considerable portion of the whole and does not admit of compensation in money.4. Enforceability of Family Arrangements:The plaintiffs argued that family arrangements are enforceable in law and cited several Supreme Court decisions supporting this view. The Court acknowledged that family arrangements are generally upheld to preserve family unity and honor. However, it emphasized that even family arrangements must meet the basic requirements of an enforceable agreement, such as consensus ad idem and absence of fraud or misrepresentation. The Court found that the MoU in question did not meet these requirements due to its lack of material particulars.5. Partition and Separate Possession of Property:The Court noted that there were two Suits: one for specific performance of the MoU and another for partition and separate possession of the property. The defendant had also sought Letters of Administration based on a Will. The Court observed that the only certainty in the MoU was the undivided share of each party, while other aspects remained indeterminate. The Court concluded that the present Suit for specific performance was redundant and that the issues could be addressed in the pending Suit for partition.Conclusion:The Court allowed the Application for rejection of the Plaint, finding that the MoU could not be specifically enforced due to its inherent uncertainties and that the Suit was barred by law. The plaintiffs were advised to pursue their claims in the pending Suit for partition, where they could file the MoU and argue their case regarding the shares in the property.