Concluded contract and injunction discretion: written banachitti was enforceable, and appellate interference was declined.

A written banachitti containing the essential terms of sale, including property, consideration and payment terms, was treated as a concluded contract because it was accepted and acted upon by part payment; the absence of a formal agreement did not defeat enforceability. The plea that the arrangement was contingent on the sisters' consent was rejected on the basis of the surrounding conduct, including representation that the transaction was complete and the application of estoppel principles. The interlocutory injunction was left undisturbed because appellate interference is warranted only where discretion is exercised perversely or on settled legal error, and the trial court had considered the relevant injunction factors.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the written banachitti dated 18.11.2010 was merely an understanding to enter into a future agreement or a concluded contract capable of specific enforcement; (ii) whether the document could be treated as a contingent contract dependent on the consent of the sisters so as to defeat enforcement; (iii) whether the trial court's interlocutory injunction warranted interference in appeal.

Issue (i): Whether the written banachitti dated 18.11.2010 was merely an understanding to enter into a future agreement or a concluded contract capable of specific enforcement

Analysis: The writing contained the essential elements of the transaction, including the property, consideration and payment arrangement, and it was acted upon by part payment of substantial consideration. The conduct of the parties showed that the understanding had been reduced into writing as the operative arrangement, and the absence of a formal document in a prescribed form did not by itself prevent enforceability. A contract under Indian law need not be in any particular form if its essential terms are ascertainable and accepted by the parties.

Conclusion: The banachitti was a concluded agreement capable of specific enforcement and not a mere unenforceable agreement to agree.

Issue (ii): Whether the document could be treated as a contingent contract dependent on the consent of the sisters so as to defeat enforcement

Analysis: The plea of contingency was negatived by the surrounding facts, including the existence of a power-of-attorney in favour of the mother, execution of the writing, and acceptance of substantial consideration in part performance. Having held out that the transaction was complete and having induced the other side to act on that representation, the defendants could not later repudiate the arrangement by asserting absence of consent or by characterising the arrangement as contingent. Principles of promissory estoppel and estoppel by conduct were attracted.

Conclusion: The contract was not a contingent contract and the objection based on want of the sisters' consent was rejected.

Issue (iii): Whether the trial court's interlocutory injunction warranted interference in appeal

Analysis: Interference with an interlocutory discretionary order is justified only when the discretion is exercised arbitrarily, perversely or in disregard of settled principles governing injunctions. The impugned order had considered the relevant factors of prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable injury. Even if another view was possible, the appellate court was not entitled to substitute its own discretion for that of the trial court merely because it preferred a different conclusion.

Conclusion: No ground for appellate interference was made out.

Final Conclusion: The appeals were not entertained and the injunction order remained undisturbed, with the connected civil applications becoming infructuous and being disposed of accordingly.

Ratio Decidendi: A written transaction containing the essential terms of sale, acted upon by part performance, is enforceable as a concluded contract notwithstanding the absence of a formal agreement, and an appellate court will not interfere with a discretionary injunction order unless the discretion has been exercised perversely or on settled legal error.

---