Uncertain family settlement terms cannot be specifically enforced when essential development details remain open and supervision would be required.

A memorandum of understanding arising from a family arrangement was held too uncertain to be specifically enforced where only the parties' one-fourth shares were definite and the remaining terms on joint development, builder selection, built-up area allocation, and compensation were left for future negotiation. The Court applied the limits under the Specific Relief Act, 1963 and the rule that a contract with essential terms left open, or requiring continuous supervision, cannot be enforced specifically. As the suit was framed as one for specific performance of an incomplete and indeterminate arrangement, the plaint was liable to rejection under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. The ascertainable share arrangement, if any, could be pursued in partition proceedings.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the plaint in a suit seeking specific performance of a memorandum of understanding was liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 on the ground that the agreement was incapable of specific enforcement and barred by law. (ii) Whether the memorandum of understanding, though arising out of a family arrangement, could be specifically enforced when only the shares of the parties were certain and the remaining terms of joint development were left indeterminate.

Issue (i): Whether the plaint in a suit seeking specific performance of a memorandum of understanding was liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 on the ground that the agreement was incapable of specific enforcement and barred by law.

Analysis: The relief sought was not a mere declaration of shares but a decree compelling execution of a sale deed in terms of an alleged memorandum of understanding. The Court found that the agreement contained several uncertain and unfinished elements, including identification of the builder, negotiation of terms, allocation of constructed area, and valuation of monetary compensation in lieu of built-up area. Since the Court could not supply missing material terms or supervise the working out of those terms, the suit, in substance, sought specific performance of an incomplete and indeterminate arrangement. The case therefore attracted the statutory limits on specific performance under the Specific Relief Act, 1963 and the principle that a contract uncertain in its material terms cannot be enforced.

Conclusion: The plaint was liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Issue (ii): Whether the memorandum of understanding, though arising out of a family arrangement, could be specifically enforced when only the shares of the parties were certain and the remaining terms of joint development were left indeterminate.

Analysis: Family arrangements are ordinarily viewed with favour and may be sustained on special equitable considerations, but that principle does not dispense with the basic requirement of certainty and enforceability. The Court held that the only definite term in the memorandum was the allotment of one-fourth undivided share to each side. All remaining matters were left for future mutual discussion or for decision with an unknown builder, making the alleged arrangement incapable of specific enforcement. The agreement also fell within the statutory bars against specific performance of contracts that are dependent on numerous details, personal volition, or continuous supervision, and within the prohibition on compelling specific performance of only a part of such a contract.

Conclusion: The memorandum of understanding was not specifically enforceable and could not sustain the suit.

Final Conclusion: The suit could not proceed as one for specific performance and the only ascertainable aspect of the arrangement could be worked out, if at all, in the pending partition proceedings.

Ratio Decidendi: A memorandum of understanding that leaves essential terms of performance, implementation, and valuation open for future negotiation is too uncertain and supervisory in nature to be specifically enforced, even if it arises from a family arrangement; in such a case, the plaint is liable to rejection when the suit is framed as one for specific performance.

---