- (1.) THE plaintiff-respondent filed a suit for possession by specific performance of agreement dated 8. 4. 1968 in respect of land fully described in the title of the plaint which was resisted by the appellant herein on various grounds resulting in the framing of the following issues by the trial Court. 1. "whether the defendant executed the agreement dated 8. 4. 1968 in favour of Plaintiff and received Rs. 30,000/- at that time as the sale price from the plaintiff ? 2. If issue No. 1 is proved, whether the said agreement was got executed by undue influence, misrepresentation and fraud? 3. Whether agreement dated 8. 4. 1968 is vague illegal and unenforceable? 4. Whether the plaintiff has been always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract? 5. Whether the defendant has committed the breach of the contract? 6. Relief. "
(2.) THE parties entered upon the evidence and trial court vide its judgment and decree dated 28. 8. 1974 dismissed the suit of the plaintiff mainly on the ground that the agreement executed between the parties was vague and hit by the provisions of Section 29 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 (for short the "act") which could not be enforced. In appeal, the finding of the trial Court on issue No. 3 was set aside by holding that the agreement of sale was neither uncertain nor void and was clearly enforceable. The defendant feeling aggrieved of the judgment of the learned Single Judge has failed this appeal mainly on the ground that the finding on issue No. 3 of the learned Single Judge was unwarranted and contrary to the settled propositions of law.
(3.) WE have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.;