BRIJ MOHAN AND ORS. versus SMT. SUGRA BEGUM AND ORS.

Citation: [1990] 3 S.C.R. 413 · Decided: 19-07-1990 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: L.M. SHARMA · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

-
). 
BRIJ MOHAN AND ORS. 
v. 
SMT. SUGRA BEGUM AND ORS. 
JULY, 19, 1990 
[L.M. SHARMA AND N.M. KASLIWAL, JJ.] 
Specific Relief Act-Specific pe1ormance of contract of sale of 
immovable property on basis of oral agreement alone-Heavy burden 
lies on plaintiff to prove consensus ad idem. 
Transfer of Properly Act-Section 55-Provision not applicable 
where patties consciously negotiated but failed in respect of any term or 
condition resulting in agreement not being concluded. 
The appellants-plaintiffs are four brothers. They filed a sui1 
against defendant No. 1, Smt. Mahboohunnisa ·Begum, (Since deceased 
and represented by legal heirs) for specific performance of oral contract 
of sale of a building in Hyderabad. The property was later sold hy 
defendant No. 1 to defendants Nos. 3 and 4. 
The plaintiffs' case was that plaintiffs Nos. 1 and 2, on behalf of 
themselves and their younger brothers, plaintiffs Nos. 3 and 4, had 
preliminary negotiations for the purchase of the suit property through 
Shri Arif Ali, advocate; that eventually on 3rd May, 1979 they met Aril 
Ali and offered to pay Rs.10,00,000, which was the price demanded by 
the owner; that Arif Ali, after getting the confirmation of the said offer 
from the first defendant on phone, said that the plaintiffs should meet 
the first defendant on 6th May, 1979 and that she would in the mean-
while purchase the stamp papers for making the formal agreement of 
sale incorporating the oral agreement arrived at on 3rd May, 1979; that 
on 6th May, 1979 the plaintiffs met the first defendant in the presence of 
Arif Ali and other, wherein the amount of earnest money to be paid, 
time for registration of the sale deed etc. were decided; that at that 
meeting Sbri Arif Ali, prepared first and the final drafts Of the receipt 
in his own handwriting and handed over these drafts to the first 
plaintiff to get the final draft typed and duly stamped; that Arif Ali also 
delivered the stamp papers to the first plaintiff for typing the formal 
agreement of sale; that at the meeting held on 6th May, 1979 the 
plaintiffs Nos. 1 and 2 were also permitted to proceed with the publica-
tion of the notices in the newspapers; that after the public notice was 
published, the first defendant got a reply notice published and got 
413 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
A 
B 
c 
414 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1990] 3 S.C.R. 
issued a legal notice dated 8.5. 79 through her advocate, alleging that 
there was no agreement for sale; that thereafter, the first and second 
plaintiffs made sincere and repeated attempts to convince the first 
defendant that there was in existence a concluded contract for sale of 
the suit property, and that the execution of the agreement of sale was a 
mere formality. On these allegations, the plaintiffs sought the relief of 
specific performance of the agreement. 
The first defendant in her written statement stated that certain 
negotiations had taken place between her and plaintiffs Nos. I and 2, 
but the negotiations had failed. It was further stated that there was no 
concluded or enforceable contract between the parties; that no price 
was settled or agreed upon and even the condition for advance payment 
aud other terms and conditions were not agreed upon; that no ftnal 
receipt or document had been prepared; and that the first defendant 
never asked for the purchase of stamp papers. 
The Trial Court found that on the facts and circumstances of the 
D case, it was established that the plaintiffs had entered into an oral 
contract of sale with the first defendant on 3.5. 79. The Trial Court 
accordingly decreed the plaintiffs' suit for specific performance. 
Two separate appeals, were filed in the High Court. A Division 
Bench of the High Court allowed the appeals and set aside the decree 
E passed by the trial court. The High Court held that in order to 
determine the binding nature of a contract between the parties, the 
mere acceptance of sale price was not sufficient. The High Court 
further observed that in the absence of evidence that the other terms 
also were discussed over the phone and settled on 3.5. 79, it could not be 
said that there was a concluded contract on 3rd May, 1979, and that it 
F 
was obviously for that reason that a further meeting was fixed at the 
house of the 1st defendant on 6th May, 1979. The High Court did not 
agree with the contention of the plaintiffs that all the terms of contract, 
including the stipulation with regard to the payme

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.