Uncertain property description defeated specific performance, but admitted earnest money remained refundable without interest.

An agreement to sell immovable property was held incapable of specific performance because the subject matter was described with such uncertainty that the property could not be identified with reasonable certainty, and no plan cured the ambiguity; the decree for specific performance was therefore set aside under Section 29 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. Since execution of the agreement and receipt of the advance were admitted, restitution of the earnest money was maintained, but interest was refused because the record showed repeated requests to correct the property description before completion and the plaintiffs did not do so. The advance was refundable without interest.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the agreement to sell was void for uncertainty of the subject matter and therefore incapable of specific performance. (ii) Whether, despite refusal of specific performance, the plaintiffs were entitled only to refund of the earnest money without interest.

Issue (i): Whether the agreement to sell was void for uncertainty of the subject matter and therefore incapable of specific performance.

Analysis: The agreement described the property in a manner that did not enable its certain identification on the spot and no plan was attached to cure the ambiguity. The defendant's contemporaneous replies and the plaintiff's own evidence showed that the description of the land was incorrect and that the property as described did not exist. An agreement with such uncertain subject matter cannot be specifically enforced.

Conclusion: The agreement was void for uncertainty under Section 29 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, and the decree for specific performance could not be sustained.

Issue (ii): Whether, despite refusal of specific performance, the plaintiffs were entitled only to refund of the earnest money without interest.

Analysis: Since the defendant had admitted execution of the agreement and receipt of Rs. 3,000 as advance, the plaintiffs were entitled to restitution of that amount. At the same time, the record showed that the defendant had repeatedly asked for correction of the property description before execution of the sale deed, and the plaintiffs had not done so. On that footing, interest was declined.

Conclusion: The plaintiffs were entitled to refund of the earnest money of Rs. 3,000, but without interest.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded only to the extent that the decree for specific performance was set aside, while the monetary liability to refund the advance was maintained without interest.

Ratio Decidendi: A contract for sale of immovable property cannot be specifically enforced if the subject matter is described with such uncertainty that the property cannot be identified with reasonable certainty; in such a case, restitution of admitted advance money may still be granted.

---