Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + SC Indian Laws - 2008 (2) TMI SC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2008 (2) TMI 950 - SC - Indian LawsSuit for specific performance of contract - Pendency of the first suit - permission for filing another suit on the same cause of action - agreement of sale entered into by and between the parties - HELD THAT:- It is no doubt true that ordinarily an endeavour should be made by the court to give effect to the terms of the agreement but it is also a well settled principle of law that an agreement is to be read as a whole so as to enable the court to ascertain the true intention of the parties. It is not in dispute that no plan was prepared. A purported sketch mark was attached with the plaint, which was not proved. Evidences brought on record clearly lead to the conclusion that the appellant was not the tenant in respect of the entire house. She, in her deposition, even did not claim the same. Another tenant was occupying some rooms in the same premises. Appellant herein in her evidence also admitted that no map was attached to the agreement. The very fact that the premises sought to be transferred could not adequately be described; a plan was sought to be attached. According to the appellant herself, she had been residing only in the ground floor, along with open land on the northern side and had been using two rooms, a Patore alongwith open land of the upper portion. She had not received the possession of the disputed house. It is, therefore, evident that she did not claim herself to be a tenant in respect of the entire house and, thus, the same was not agreed to be sold. An agreement of sale must be construed having regard to the circumstances attending thereto. The relationship between the parties was that of the landlord and tenant. Appellant was only a tenant in respect of a part of the premises. It may be that the boundaries of the house have been described but a plan was to be a part thereof. We have indicated hereinbefore that the parties intended to annex a plan with the agreement only because the description of the properties was inadequate. It is with a view to make the description of the subject matter of sale definite, the plan was to be attached. The plan was not even prepared. It has not been found that the sketch of map annexed to the plaint conformed to the plan which was to be made a part of the agreement for sale. The agreement for sale, therefore, being uncertain could not be given effect to. Thus, we do not find any infirmity in the judgment of the High Court. The appeal is dismissed.
|