Agreement Valid with Vendor's Signature Alone: SC Affirms Specific Performance Decree, Dismisses Appeal Without Costs.

The SC upheld the Division Bench of the HC's decision, affirming the trial court's decree for specific performance. The SC concluded that an agreement of sale is valid even if signed only by the vendor, provided it evidences an oral agreement accepted by the purchaser. The plaintiff satisfied the conditions under Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, by paying the earnest money and being ready to pay the balance. The appeal was dismissed, and no costs were awarded.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of an agreement of sale executed only by the vendor and not by the purchaser.
2. Satisfaction of conditions for a decree for specific performance under Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of an Agreement of Sale Executed only by the Vendor:

The primary contention was whether an agreement of sale (Ext. 2) signed solely by the vendor, without the purchaser's signature, is valid. The defendant argued that the agreement was forged and incomplete without the purchaser's signature, making it unenforceable. The trial court, however, framed specific issues and analyzed the evidence, including expert testimony, to conclude that the signature on the agreement was genuine. The Division Bench of the High Court also compared signatures from other documents and found them consistent with the agreement of sale, affirming the trial court's findings.

The Supreme Court addressed the argument that a sale agreement must be bilateral and signed by both parties. It noted that neither of the divergent High Court decisions-one stating that an agreement signed only by the vendor is unenforceable and the other considering it a unilateral contract-addressed the real issue correctly. The Court clarified that all agreements of sale are bilateral contracts, as they involve promises from both the vendor and the purchaser. It emphasized that an agreement of sale can be valid even if signed only by the vendor, provided it evidences an oral agreement and is accepted by the purchaser. The Court found that the agreement in question, despite its format suggesting signatures from both parties, was intended to be complete upon the vendor's signature, as evidenced by subsequent endorsements and actions by both parties.

2. Satisfaction of Conditions for Decree for Specific Performance under Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963:

The Court examined whether the plaintiff had established her case for specific performance under Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. The trial court and the Division Bench of the High Court concluded that the plaintiff had performed her part by paying the earnest money and expressing her readiness to pay the balance. The defendant acknowledged the notice sent by the plaintiff. The clauses in the agreement required the vendor to execute the sale deed upon receiving the consideration, which the plaintiff was ready and willing to fulfill.

The Supreme Court affirmed that the plaintiff had met the conditions under Section 16(c) for specific performance. Despite the defendant's contention that the plaintiff's claim of being put in possession of a portion of the property was not accepted by the trial court, the Court found that the validity of the agreement and the fulfillment of other conditions justified the decree for specific performance. The Court agreed with the Division Bench's conclusion that the agreement of sale was enforceable and that the trial court rightly granted the decree, which was affirmed by the Division Bench.

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court upheld the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court, which set aside the Single Judge's order and affirmed the trial court's decree for specific performance. The appeal was dismissed, and no costs were awarded.

---