LexVISWESARDAS GOKULDAS versus B. K. NARAYAN SINGH & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B c D E F G 581 VISWESARDAS GOKULDAS v. B. K. NARAYAN SINGH & ANR. February 6, 1969 [S. M. SIKRI, R. S. BACHAWAT AND K. S. HEGDE, JJ.] Contract Act, 1872 (9 of 1872), ss. 2 (6), 3 and ?-Suit. for specific performance of contract-Contract whether concluded-Acceptance of offer through plaint filed in another suit whether constitutes proper accep- tance-Service of copy of plaint whether constitutes communication of acceptance. Under a contract dated August 3, 1957 the def~ndant agreed to sell to the plaintiffs 40,000 tons of float iron lying in a mining area in the Hooadurgo Taluka in Mysore State, and gave them a right to win and remove iron ore. On September 2, 1957, the defendant wrote to the plaintiffs that further to the agreement dated August 3, 1957, he agreed to assign the said lease area of 184 acres for iron and manganese ores to the plaintiffs subject to their paying one lakh and eighty thousand rupees within three months. The three months expired on November 6, 1957 without the offer being accepted by the plaintiffs orally or by letter. On October 31, 1957 the defendant posted a letter to the plaintiffs revok- ing the offer, which reached them on November 6, 1957. The plaintiffs instituted a suit (0.S. No. 55 of 1957) against the defendant alleging that by contract dated September 2, 1957 the defendant had agreed to aasign to the plaintiffs his leasehold interest in the aforesaid 184 acres of land and claiming specific\ performance of the contract. The trial court decreed the suit. The defendant appealed to the High Court. On the question whether the offer made in the defendant's letter of September 2, 1957 had been accepted by the plaintiffs the High Court held that the plaintiffs had accepted the said offer in their plaint in anothe'r suit relating to the possession of the same land (O.S. No. 46 of 1957) a copy of which was served On the defendant on November 5, 1957 a day earlier than the defendant's letter revoking the offer reached the plaintiffs. Des- pite this finding, on another ground, the High Court allowed the defen- dant's appeal and dismissed the suit, namely, O.S. No. 55 of 1957. The plaintiff appealed with certificate to this Court. HELD : The appeal must be dismissed on the ground that Ihm was no concluded contract between the parties. [585 C-Dl The letter dated September 2, 1957 sent by the defendant to the plain- ti1fs, though worded as an agreement was in point of law an offer only. The defendant was at liberty to revoke the offer at any time before its acceptance by the plaintiffs. The defendant's letter revoking the offer reached the plaintiifs on Novembe'r 6, 1957. Before that date the plain- tilh did not accept the offer either orally or by letter. The High Court ~as wrong in holding that the plaintiffs accepted the offer by their plaint m O.S. No. 46 of 1957 and that this acceptance was communicated to the defendant before November 6, 1957. [583 B-E] H . Considering the contents of its relevant paragraphs the plaint in ques- tion was not in point of law an acceptance of the offer, nor was it ·intend- ed .to be an acceptance. It is not usual to accept a business offer by a plamt; nor is it usual to communicate an acceptance by serving a copy 582 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1969] 3 S.C.R. of the plaint through the medium of the Court. To hold thu8 would be A straining the language of ss. 2(6), 3 and 7 of the Contract Act. [585 A-Bl The old chancery practice under which the mere filing of a bill in a suit to enforce specific performance was regarded as sufficient accep- tance of the defendant's offe'r unless the offer had been withdrawn before the filing of the suit, cannot be applicable under the present Indian praci- B tice and procedure. [585 C-EJ The argument based on Bloum's case that the communication of an assent was not necessary and mere mental assent of the plaintiffs to the defendant's proposal was sufficient. was misconceived. [585 Fl Boys v. Ayerst, (1822) 6 Madd. 316, 326=56 E.R. 1112, 1115, Agar v. Biden, (1833) 2 L.J. Ch. 3 and Bloxam's case, 33 Beav 529, distin- guished. C In re : Pe/latt' s case, L.R. 2 Ch. App. 527, applied. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1851 of 1968. Appeal from the judgment and decree dated June 19, 1963 of the Mysore High Court in Regular Appeal No. 231 of 1960. D Sltyamala Pappu and Vineet Kumar, for the appellant. K. R. Chaudhuri and K. Rajendra Chaudhur
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.