Uncertain sale agreement cannot support specific performance; execution must be proved and vague terms cannot be cured by extrinsic evidence.

Specific performance requires a valid, certain and enforceable contract; an agreement that does not identify the subject matter with clarity, including boundaries or a definite khasra number, is void for uncertainty and cannot be enforced. A plea that the agreement is vague and unenforceable may be examined even without a specific written-statement plea, because uncertainty goes to the root of enforceability and cannot be cured by extrinsic evidence. The plaintiff also bears the burden of proving due execution, and where supporting witnesses are inconsistent and the execution evidence is deficient, the agreement is not established in accordance with law.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the agreement to sell was vague and incapable of enforcement under the law governing uncertain agreements; (ii) whether the defence of vagueness and unenforceability could be raised even without a specific pleading in the written statement; (iii) whether the plaintiff proved due execution of the agreement in accordance with law.

Issue (i): whether the agreement to sell was vague and incapable of enforcement under the law governing uncertain agreements.

Analysis: An agreement is void if its meaning is uncertain or incapable of being made certain. A decree for specific performance can be granted only on the basis of a valid and enforceable contract. The document in question described only a kutcha house and an approximate area, without identifying the land or house with certainty, without boundaries and without a specific khasra number. The plaint itself supplied details that were absent from the agreement, showing that the agreement did not by itself disclose a clear and determinative intention as to the subject matter. A contract so lacking in identity and certainty cannot be specifically enforced.

Conclusion: The agreement was vague, void and incapable of enforcement.

Issue (ii): whether the defence of vagueness and unenforceability could be raised even without a specific pleading in the written statement.

Analysis: The plea that a contract is void for uncertainty is a question of law going to the root of enforceability. Such a plea can be examined at the appellate stage on the terms of the document itself. If the document is vague on a fair construction, extrinsic evidence cannot be used to create certainty or to make a new contract for the parties. The absence of an express plea in the written statement did not bar consideration of this defence.

Conclusion: The defence could validly be entertained despite the absence of a specific pleading.

Issue (iii): whether the plaintiff proved due execution of the agreement in accordance with law.

Analysis: The burden of proving execution lay on the plaintiff. The witnesses produced by the plaintiff did not give clear and consistent evidence about the nature of the transaction, the identity of the property, or the execution process. The scribe did not produce the deed writer register, the stamp vendor was not examined, and the defendant's testimony denying execution remained effectively unchallenged on the point of signature and execution. On the evidence led, the plaintiff failed to establish due execution of the document.

Conclusion: The plaintiff failed to prove due execution of the agreement.

Final Conclusion: The agreement could not support a decree for specific performance, and the concurrent dismissal of the suit required no interference.

Ratio Decidendi: Specific performance can be granted only where the contract is valid, certain and enforceable, and the plaintiff must prove execution and the identity of the subject matter with sufficient certainty from the agreement itself.

---