Unilateral promise to convey leasehold interest can be specifically enforced when supported by executed consideration and performance of condition.

A unilateral promise to convey a leasehold interest was treated as supported by valid consideration where the lease, kabuliyat and ekrarnama formed one connected transaction and the grant of the lease was an act done at the promisor's desire. The absence of reciprocal promises did not bar specific performance, because the undertaking was conditional and became enforceable in equity once the stipulated sum was tendered and the promisee remained ready and willing to perform. The appellate court was also entitled to compare the disputed signature with admitted signatures, and the late request for handwriting expert evidence was properly rejected.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the defendant's promise to convey the leasehold interest was supported by consideration; (ii) whether absence of mutual promises barred specific performance of the undertaking; (iii) whether the appellate court rightly compared the disputed signature and rejected the request for handwriting expert evidence.

Issue (i): whether the defendant's promise to convey the leasehold interest was supported by consideration.

Analysis: The lease, kabuliyat, and ekrarnama were executed on the same day and formed part of one connected transaction. The grant of the lease was treated as an act done at the desire of the promisor and, therefore, as consideration within the meaning of the law of contract. The promise to reconvey was not without consideration merely because there was no reciprocal promise by the plaintiff to purchase.

Conclusion: The promise was supported by valid consideration.

Issue (ii): whether absence of mutual promises barred specific performance of the undertaking.

Analysis: The undertaking was unilateral and conditional upon payment of the stipulated sum within the agreed period. In such a case, reciprocity of obligations is not essential in the same manner as in a bilateral contract. Once the condition was performed and the plaintiff was ready and willing to pay, the contract became enforceable in equity.

Conclusion: Specific performance was maintainable and could not be refused for want of mutuality.

Issue (iii): whether the appellate court rightly compared the disputed signature and rejected the request for handwriting expert evidence.

Analysis: The request for expert evidence was made at a very late stage in appeal, although the scribe and other evidence had already supported execution of the document. The court was entitled to compare the disputed signature with admitted signatures under the Evidence Act, and no legal error was shown in refusing a belated remand or additional evidence.

Conclusion: The finding of execution was upheld and the request for handwriting expert evidence was properly rejected.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded, the decree dismissing the suit was set aside, and the suit for specific performance stood decreed.

Ratio Decidendi: A unilateral promise to convey property is enforceable when supported by executed consideration arising from a connected transaction, and specific performance is not barred merely because the promisee made no reciprocal promise where the contractual condition has been performed.

---