TaxTMI Login
🎉 Festive Offer: Flat 15% off on all plans! →⚡ Don’t Miss Out: Limited-Time Offer →
TaxTMI 
Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Contract for Specific Performance Dismissed: Land Description Uncertain, Earnest Money Refunded</h1> <h3>Kashiram Versus Mitthulal, Kushchandra</h3> The court dismissed the suit for specific performance of the contract due to the void nature of the agreement caused by an uncertain description of the ... - Issues Involved:1. Specific Performance of Contract2. Validity of Contract under Section 29 of the Indian Contract Act, 18723. Readiness and Willingness to Perform Contract4. Misrepresentation and Mistake in ContractSummary:1. Specific Performance of Contract:The plaintiffs/respondents filed a suit for specific performance of a contract against the appellant/defendant, claiming that an agreement of sale was executed on 1.12.1991 for the sale of land for Rs. 24,000/-, with Rs. 3,000/- paid in advance. The trial court decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiffs, leading to the present appeal u/s 96 of CPC by the defendant.2. Validity of Contract under Section 29 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872:The defendant contended that the contract was void ab initio u/s 29 of the Contract Act due to the incorrect and uncertain description of the land. The court found that the description of the property was indeed uncertain, making the contract void. The court noted, 'the agreement is uncertain and void as envisaged under Section 29.'3. Readiness and Willingness to Perform Contract:The plaintiffs claimed they were ready to perform their part of the contract, but the defendant avoided executing the sale deed. The defendant admitted the execution of the agreement and receipt of Rs. 3,000/- but argued that the land description was incorrect and he did not own such land. The court observed that the defendant was honest and fair, as he repeatedly asked the plaintiffs to correct the description of the land.4. Misrepresentation and Mistake in Contract:The defendant argued that he signed the agreement under pressure and without reading it, as he was disturbed due to his missing she-buffalo. The court found that the plaintiffs themselves prepared the document and the defendant signed it under their insistence. The court held that the agreement was void due to the incorrect description of the land and the mistake of fact about the existence of the land.Conclusion:The court allowed the appeal in part, dismissing the suit for specific performance of the contract but ordering the defendant to refund the earnest money of Rs. 3,000/- to the plaintiffs without any interest. The court directed both parties to bear their own costs.
TaxTMI 
