Specific performance requires a clear and definite contract; uncertainty over the property portion made enforcement unsustainable.

Specific performance was refused because the agreement to sell did not identify the subject matter with sufficient certainty. The contract referred generally to the house occupied by the respondent, but it contained no area measurements, no clear demarcation of the portion to be sold, and no attached map despite an assertion that one existed. The evidence showed uncertainty as to which part of the two-storeyed house was covered by the bargain. Since specific performance is available only where the parties are ad idem and the contract is clear, definite and enforceable, the decree could not be sustained and the appeal succeeded to that extent.

---

---

Issues: Whether the agreement to sell was sufficiently clear, definite and certain to support a decree for specific performance.

Analysis: The agreement did not clearly identify the portion of the house intended to be sold. It referred to the house where the respondent resided, but contained no area measurements, no clear demarcation of the portion, and no attached map despite the claim that one existed. The evidence also showed uncertainty about which part of the two-storeyed house was covered by the contract. In these circumstances, the contract lacked the certainty required for specific performance, which can be granted only when the parties are ad idem and the terms are valid, definite and enforceable.

Conclusion: The decree for specific performance could not be sustained and the appeal succeeded to that extent.

Ratio Decidendi: Specific performance can be decreed only where the contract is clear, definite and certain, with an identifiable subject matter and consensus ad idem between the parties.

---