Family settlement preference clause did not create specific performance right; unmet offer and estoppel defeated challenge to sale.

A family settlement clause requiring written concurrence and giving first preference to brothers was treated as certain and not void for vagueness, with the price capable of meaning fair market value in context. The correspondence showed that a sale offer was made to the plaintiff, but he did not complete the transaction in time. The clause was held to create only a preferential family right, not an enforceable contract for specific performance or a pleaded pre-emption claim. The plaintiff was also estopped from relying on the absence of written concurrence after participating in the process, and the sale was not shown to fail on the ground of unlawful fragmentation.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the family settlement was void for vagueness or uncertainty; (ii) whether an offer was made to the plaintiff before the sale to the third party and whether the plaintiff failed to act on it; (iii) whether the plaintiff could enforce the clause as a right of pre-emption or as a contract for specific performance; (iv) whether absence of written concurrence by the brothers invalidated the sale; (v) whether the sale was hit by the prohibition against fragmentation of the Chandigarh property.

Issue (i): whether the family settlement was void for vagueness or uncertainty

Analysis: An agreement is void only if its meaning is not certain or capable of being made certain. A document may be construed even if a plea of vagueness is raised for the first time in appeal, because the issue is one of law based on the terms of the document itself. The clause requiring written concurrence before sale and giving first preference to the other brothers was held to convey a definite meaning. The price was not expressly fixed, but in the context of a family settlement the price was capable of being understood as the fair market price.

Conclusion: The family settlement was not void for uncertainty.

Issue (ii): whether an offer was made to the plaintiff before the sale to the third party and whether the plaintiff failed to act on it

Analysis: The correspondence showed that the seller's side made a clear offer to sell the share to the plaintiff, that the asking price was stated, and that the plaintiff acknowledged the offer as reasonable. The letters also showed that the seller was in urgent need of money and repeatedly sought a response, while the plaintiff did not complete the transaction. On the evidence, the offer was made and the plaintiff did not effectively accept or complete it.

Conclusion: An offer was made, and the plaintiff failed to act upon it in time.

Issue (iii): whether the plaintiff could enforce the clause as a right of pre-emption or as a contract for specific performance

Analysis: A right of pre-emption is a preferential right to acquire property on sale and is distinct from a right to re-purchase. The plaint did not plead a pre-emption claim; instead, it sought declaration and specific performance. The family arrangement did not itself fix the sale price or create an ordinary contract for sale in the manner required for specific performance. The clause only created a preferential right within the family, and the plaintiff's claim could not be enlarged into a decree for specific performance on that basis.

Conclusion: The clause did not support a decree for specific performance or a separate pre-emption claim in the manner pleaded.

Issue (iv): whether absence of written concurrence by the brothers invalidated the sale

Analysis: Although the clause contemplated written concurrence before a sale, the parties had already proceeded to the stage of a sale offer between the brothers. The plaintiff had acted on the transaction without insisting on written concurrence, the seller had made an offer to him, and the plaintiff failed to complete it. In these circumstances, the plaintiff was estopped from relying on the absence of written concurrence to defeat the later sale to a stranger.

Conclusion: The absence of written concurrence did not invalidate the sale in the plaintiff's favour.

Issue (v): whether the sale was hit by the prohibition against fragmentation of the Chandigarh property

Analysis: The governing Chandigarh regime prohibited fragmentation of a site, but the transaction transferred the seller's one-third share and that share was mutated in the purchaser's name. The material did not establish that the transaction was vulnerable on the ground of unlawful fragmentation. The objection was also not shown to defeat the conveyance on the facts of the case.

Conclusion: The sale was not shown to be invalid on the ground of fragmentation.

Final Conclusion: The family settlement was upheld as genuine and definite, but the plaintiff failed to obtain the relief sought because the offer was not accepted in time, the claim could not be converted into enforceable specific performance or pre-emption relief on the pleaded basis, and the sale to the third party was not set aside.

Ratio Decidendi: A family settlement clause granting written concurrence and first preference does not, by itself, create a specific enforceable contract for sale; where an offer is made and not acted upon, the claimant cannot later defeat a completed sale by relying on the absence of written concurrence.

---