2013 (2) TMI 875 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the agreement/banachitti dated 18.11.2010.
2. Contingent nature of the contract.
3. Admissibility and enforceability of the agreement.
4. Discretionary powers of the trial court in granting injunction.

Summary:

1. Validity of the Agreement/Banachitti:
The appellants contended that the banachitti dated 18.11.2010 could not be considered a valid agreement for specific performance as it was not signed by the sisters, who had a share in the property. They argued that the document lacked essential terms and signatures, rendering it invalid. The respondents countered that the banachitti contained all necessary particulars and was signed by the mother, who held the power-of-attorney for the sisters, making it a valid agreement. The court concluded that the banachitti reflected the intention of the parties and contained essential terms, thus constituting a valid agreement.

2. Contingent Nature of the Contract:
The appellants argued that the agreement was contingent upon the consent of the sisters, making it unenforceable u/s 31 of the Contract Act. The court found this argument misconceived, noting that the mother held the power-of-attorney for the sisters and substantial consideration had been paid in part performance of the agreement. The court emphasized that the principle of promissory estoppel applied, preventing the appellants from backing out of the agreement.

3. Admissibility and Enforceability:
The appellants claimed the agreement was not enforceable as it was not registered and lacked specific details regarding stamp duty and other expenses. The court held that the banachitti met the requirements of a valid agreement under the Indian Contract Act, which does not mandate a specific form for contracts. The court referenced the principle that even an oral agreement could be specifically enforced and that the banachitti, containing all material particulars, was enforceable.

4. Discretionary Powers of the Trial Court:
The appellants challenged the trial court's discretionary order granting an injunction. The court reiterated that discretionary orders should not be disturbed unless shown to be exercised arbitrarily, capriciously, or perversely. The court found that the trial court had considered the relevant criteria for granting an injunction, including prima facie case and balance of convenience, and thus, the order did not warrant interference.

Conclusion:
The appeals were dismissed, affirming the trial court's order granting an injunction. The court held that the banachitti dated 18.11.2010 was a valid and enforceable agreement, not contingent in nature, and that the trial court had exercised its discretion appropriately in granting the injunction.