Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Case Number

Judges

Ameer Ali
Viscount Sumner

Acts

Section 92 of the Indian Evidence Act,

See more information ...

Smart Summary

Structured Summary of the Opinion

Factual and Procedural Background

The plaintiff sued in the High Court of Bombay (Original Civil Jurisdiction) for specific performance of a contract dated 28 November 1917 for the sale by the defendant, Harichand Mancharam, of immoveable property in Bombay. Two Gujarati vernacular documents were executed on that date: Exhibit "A" (signed by the defendant) and Exhibit "AI" (signed by the plaintiff). Both documents set out substantially identical terms including a stated price (Rs. 2,15,000), payment of earnest money (Rs. 10,000), provision for preparation of a "bargain paper" by a vakil within two days, allocation of certain costs, a timetable linked to the outcome of suits pending against the vendor, and requirement for a third party's signature (Ishwar-lal).

The case proceeded to trial before Mr. Justice Marten. The trial Judge held that Exhibits "A" and "AI" did not constitute a completed contract (finding them conditional on the vakil's bargain paper) and dismissed the plaintiff's suit with costs. The plaintiff appealed to the High Court (Appellate Jurisdiction), where Macleod C.J. and Heaton J. held that the November 28, 1917 documents constituted a binding agreement and reversed the trial Judge, decreeing the plaintiff's suit. The defendant then appealed further (to the Board), urging that the vernacular papers represented only a provisional arrangement.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether the suit was maintainable having regard to the fact that the writing sued on was conditional upon an agreement being entered into (i.e., whether the writing was conditional or constituted a concluded agreement).
Whether there was a concluded contract between the parties and, if so, what its terms were.

Arguments of the Parties

Plaintiff's Arguments

The two documents executed on 28 November 1917 (Exhibits "A" and "AI") formed a completed and binding contract for sale—the principal terms were embodied and agreed.
Clause 7 of Exhibit "AI" explicitly records agreement "of our free will and pleasure" and indicates a completed bargain.
What remained to be done by a vakil was the embodiment of the agreed terms in formal legal phraseology and perhaps insertion of subsidiary terms customary in conveyances, not the formation of the substantive agreement itself.
A December 4, 1917 letter from the defendant's attorney to the plaintiff's solicitor treated the Gujarati document as forming the foundation of the contract, supporting the claim that a concluded contract existed on November 28.

Defendant's Arguments

The vernacular papers represented only a provisional arrangement and did not create a decree-capable contract because the parties intended the real and effective contract to be founded on a formal bargain paper prepared by a vakil.
The clause requiring a vakil to make the bargain paper within two days and the provision that earnest money was to be paid at the making of the bargain paper indicated that the bargain was subject to a further condition.
Clause 4 linking completion to the decision in suits pending against the vendor suggested the arrangement was conditional; also two suits were then pending against the defendant contesting his title.
Formal English-language documents prepared by the defendant's solicitors containing additional terms were relied on to show the November 28 papers were not intended to be the final, complete agreement.
At trial, the defendant attempted to tender oral evidence as to what actually took place when the papers were executed; the trial Judge rejected that evidence as irrelevant and inadmissible under Section 92 of the Indian Evidence Act.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
Ridgway v. Wharton (1857) 6 H.L.C. 238	Lord Cranworth's observation that the preparation of a subsequent formal agreement may be evidence that prior negotiations did not form an agreement, but the desire for a formal agreement alone does not conclusively show parties cannot be bound by an earlier agreement.	The Court relied on this principle to observe that wanting a formal document does not by itself prevent a binding agreement having been made on the earlier vernacular papers.
Von Hatzfeldt-Wildenburg v. Alexander [1912] 1 Ch. 284	Where acceptance was expressly subject to solicitors' approval of title and contract form, negotiations were not a binding agreement (illustrating a case of an agreement subject to a condition).	The Court distinguished that case on its facts: Von Hatzfeldt-Wildenburg involved clear conditions (solicitors' approval) that made the negotiations conditional, whereas here the documents manifested a definite agreement with only a reservation for formalising language by a vakil.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The opinion traces the decision-making through three levels:

Trial Court (Mr. Justice Marten)
- Rejected the defendant's tender of oral evidence about the circumstances of execution as irrelevant and inadmissible under Section 92 of the Indian Evidence Act (a decision the appellate body considered correct).
- Interpreted the phrase "The conditions thereof are as follows" and the clause that a "bargain paper" should be made by a vakil within two days as indicating that the whole bargain was subject to a further condition—so that, until the vakil prepared the bargain paper, there was no completed contract.
- Accordingly dismissed the plaintiff's suit for specific performance with costs.
High Court, Appellate Division (Macleod C.J. and Heaton J.)
- Concluded that Exhibits "A" and "AI" constituted a binding agreement.
- Held that the provision about the vakil's preparation of a bargain paper was not a condition making the whole contract provisional but simply one of the terms—i.e., the parties intended a concluded bargain on November 28, 1917.
- Reversed the trial judge and decreed the plaintiff's suit.
Board (final appellate consideration in the provided opinion)
- Considered the defendant's contention that the documents were provisional and reviewed the clauses relied upon by the defendant (bargain paper to be made by a vakil within two days; earnest money mechanics; clause 4 linking completion to suits pending against the vendor).
- Noted that the two suits mentioned were subsequently settled and that there was no present dispute regarding the vendor's title.
- Responded to the defendant's point about later English drafts prepared by the defendant's solicitors, observing that insertion of subsidiary terms in a formal draft does not prove the vernacular exchange was not the substantive agreement.
- Relied on the overall tenor of the vernacular documents—especially Clause 7 of Exhibit "AI"—to conclude the parties intended a definite and complete agreement on November 28, 1917.
- Applied authoritative principles: cited Ridgway v. Wharton to show that a desire for a formal document does not preclude a binding agreement; distinguished Von Hatzfeldt-Wildenburg v. Alexander on its facts (where the acceptance was expressly conditional on solicitors' approval).
- Emphasised that Exhibits "A" and "AI" embodied the principal terms on which parties were in absolute agreement and that the vakil's role was to put the agreed bargain into proper legal phraseology and to add customary subsidiary terms—not to create the substantive bargain.
- Found corroboration in the defendant's attorney's letter of December 4, 1917, acknowledging the vernacular "Chitti" as foundational—further supporting that a concluded bargain existed on November 28.

Holding and Implications

Holding:

APPEAL DISMISSED — the Board held that the High Court's appellate judgment was correct in treating Exhibits "A" and "AI" as constituting a concluded, binding agreement and affirmed the decree in favour of the plaintiff. The appeal against that decree was dismissed with costs, and the Board would "humbly advise His Majesty accordingly."

Implications:

Direct effect: The plaintiff's decree for specific performance (as entered by the High Court on appeal) stands; the defendant's appeal is dismissed and the plaintiff succeeds with costs.
On legal principle: The opinion applies and reiterates established principles that whether exchanged documents form a completed bargain or merely a provisional arrangement depends on the parties' intention as evidenced by their language; a wish to have terms embodied formally by a lawyer does not, by itself, render an apparent agreement provisional. The Court distinguished circumstances where acceptance is expressly made conditional (as in Von Hatzfeldt-Wildenburg).
The opinion does not state that it establishes a novel legal precedent beyond applying and distinguishing earlier authorities; its conclusion rests on applying established principles to the facts of the case.

Note: This summary is restricted to and strictly derived from the content of the provided opinion. No outside facts or inferences beyond the text have been introduced.

Show full summary ...

Harichand Mancharam v. Govind Luxman Gokhale

1. The suit which has given rise to this appeal was brought by the plaintiff" in the High Court of Bombay in its Original Civil Jurisdiction for a decree against the defendant for specific performance of a contract entered into on November 28, 1917, for the sale, by the defendant to the plaintiff, of certain immoveable property in Bombay. Two documents in the Gujarati vernacular were prepared on the occasion, one of which was signed by the defendant Harichand Mancharam, the other by the plaintiff, the vendee, Govind Luxman Gokhale. Both bear one and the same date, and are practically in identical terms. The document executed by the defendant is marked in these proceedings as Exhibit "A"; the other, signed by the plaintiff is marked Exhibit "AI" Exhibit "A." after giving the name and designation of the intending purchaser, the plaintiff, and describing the vendor, Harichand Mancharam, proceeds thus:

I agree to give you in sale the said immovable property, together with the messuage building (standing thereon), for the price of Rupees two lacs and fifteen thousand.

2. It then gives the "conditions" of sale in these terms:

The conditions thereof are as follows:

1. The bargain paper in respect of the sale of the said immovable property shall be made through a vakil within two days from this day and at the time of making the bargain paper I am to take from you by way of earnest money in respect thereof Rs 10,00 that is you are to pay the same to me and as regards Rs. 2 lacs and five thousand being the balance you are to pay the game to me at the time of the execution of the sale deed by me and by way of earnest thereof I am to take from you that is to say you are to pay to me Rs. 10 ten thousand at the time of the (execution of the) bargain paper and the balance of Rupees two lacs five thousand is to be paid to me by you at the time when the deed of sale is executed by me.

2. As regards the said Jaga (premises) to be sold suits are pending against me in the High Court. If perchance these suits are decided against me then this bargain shall be treated ay cancelled and if such a thing happens then I am to return to you the Rs. ten thousand without interest received as earnest money by me.

3. As to the costs in respect of stamp, registration, vakil, &c., in the matter of the said sale which may be incurred on behalf of both the parties, i.e., you and myself the same shall be totalled up and borne by you and me half and half.

4. The time of completing the said matter of the said sale deed is agreed to be six months from the date of the bargain paper on the decision in the case being given in my favour during the said period, The equivalent of I and you are partly altered in the original I am to get passed, i.e., made out marketable title for you and to complete the matter of sale. If perchance the suit pending in the High Court is not disposed of within six months then this agreement) shall be in force till the disposal of the said suit and on the said suits being decided In my favour I am to complete the matter of this sale, and if the High Court suits be decided in my favour within six months I am to complete and you are to get completed the matter of sale within six months.

5. For the purpose of the sale you are to get for me the signature of Ishwar-lal the adopted son of Shankerbhai along with your signature on the sale deed.

6. In the matter of this sale I am not to pay. brokerage.

The agreement I have given and taken from you to the above effect of my and your free will and pleasure. The 28th day of November 1918 corresponds with the sud 15th of Kartak 1974, Wednesday.

3. Exhibit " AI, " after reciting the terms of the contract, in paragraph 7 says as follows:

7. This bargain is for the purchase of this immovable property together with buildings and structures thereon, (you) have given and I have taken from you the agreement to the above effect, of our free will and pleasure. The 28th day of the month of November in the year 1918 (corresponding with) the 18th of Kartak sud of Samvat 1974, Wednesday.

4. The case came on for trial before Mr. Justice Marten on the Original Side of the Court. The plaintiff contended that the two documents which formed the foundation of the suit, formed a completed contract; whilst the defendant-vendor urged that it was only a provisional arrangement conditioned to the preparation by a vakil of a formal document evidencing the contract. The learned Judge framed a number of issues, but so far as the present appeal is concerned, only the two following are material:

(1) Whether suit is maintainable having regard to fact that the writing sued on was conditional upon an agreement being entered into?

(2) Whether there was a concluded contract between the parties and if so what are the term thereof?

5. At the trial the defendant attempted to tender some oral evidence to show what actually took place on the occasion when the parties entered into the agreement relied upon by the plaintiff. The trial Judge refused the application in these words " I reject that evidence; irrelevant and inadmissible."

6. In their Lordships' opinion he was quite right, under Section 92 of the Indian Evidence Act, in rejecting the evidence, and no attempt appears to have been made on appeal to take exception on behalf of the defendant to this part of Mr. Justice Marten's order. Their Lordships do not think it necessary to refer further to this matter.

7. On the main case the trial Judge came to the conclusion that Exhibits "A" and "AL" did not constitute a completed contract chiefly relying on the use of the words, "The conditions thereof are as follows " He considered that the condition that the "bargain paper" in respect of the sale shall be made by a vakil within two days from the date of the agreement was a condition to which the whole bargain was subject, so that until the vakil prepared a bargain paper "there was no completed contract." He accordingly dismissed the plaintiff's suit with costs. On appeal by the plaintiff to the High Court in its Appellate Jurisdiction the learned Judges (Macleod C.J. and Heaton J.) arrived at a different conclusion. They held that the two documents executed on November 28, 1917, constituted a " binding agreement," and that the provision relating to the preparation of a "bargain paper " by a vakil was not a condition to which the contract was subject, and accordingly they reversed the order of this trial Judge and decreed the plaintiff's suit.

8. On appeal before the Board it is urged, on behalf of the defendant as it was urged in the Appellate Court in India, that the Gujarati papers of November 28, 1917, represented only a provisional arrangement on which no decree could be made. In support of this contention various clauses in the document executed by the defendant were referred to It is said that the fact that the bargain paper was to be made within two days from the date of the execution of the documents "A " and " Al," and was to be prepared by a vakil, and that at the making of the bargain paper the earnest money is to be paid, shows that the real and effective contract was to be founded on the paper prepared by the vakil. Again, reference was made to Claused 4, Exhibit "A," viz., that "the time of completing the said matter of the said sale deed is agreed to be six months from the date of the bargain paper on the decision in the case being given in my favour during the said period." It may be remarked here that two suits had been brought against the defendant contesting his title to the property which he had bargained to convey to the plaintiff, and the reference in paragraph 4 is to these two suits. Their Lordships understand that these two actions were subsequently settled, and there is no dispute now as regards the title of the vendor (the defendant).

9. The appellant's counsel refers also, in support of his contention, to the fact that formal documents were prepared by the defendant's solicitors in which certain additional terms were inserted, and he urges that the insertion of those terms indicates that the original agreement entered into on November 28, 1917, was not intended to be a completed contract. On behalf of the respondent reliance has been placed on the whole tenor of the two documents, and especially on Clause 7 of Exhibit "Al," to show that the parties intended to have a definite and completed agreement on that date when they executed those two papers, and what was left to be done by the vakil was only to embody the contract in a formal document and to insert in it such subsidiary terms as are usual in such conveyances. The learned Chief Justice points out in his judgment that the word "conditions" used at the beginning of Exhibit "A," in connection with the preparation of the "bargain paper" by a vakil, does not mean that it is a condition to which the bargain is subject, but that it is only one of the "terms" of the contract. Their Lordships concur in that view.

10. He has also examined at some length the cases in which the principle applicable to the construction of such documents is laid down; it is, therefore, not necessary to refer to them in detail in this judgment. Whether an agreement is a completed bargain or merely a provisional arrangement depends on the intention of the parties as deducible from the language used by the parties on the occasion when the negotiations take a concrete shape. As observed by the Lord Chancellor (Lord Cranworth) in Ridgway v. Wharton (1857) 6 H.L.C. 238 the fact of a subsequent agreement being r prepared may be evidence that the previous negotiations did not amount to an agreement, but the mere fact that persons wish to have a formal agreement drawn up does not establish the proposition that they cannot be bound by a previous agreement. In Von Hatzfeldt-Wildenburg v. Alexander [1912] 1 Ch. 284 Lord (then Mr. Justice) Parker laid down that where

"the acceptance by the plaintiff was subject to a condition that the plaintiff's solicitors should approve the title to and covenants contained in the lease, the title from the freeholder and the form of contract"

the negotiations did not form a binding agreement between the parties.

11. The facts of that case were wholly different from the present, but the judgment marks the difference between a completed and binding agreement and one subject to a condition. Here Exhibits "A" and "AI" show clearly that the parties had come to a definite and complete agreement on the subject of the sale. They embodied in the documents that were exchanged the principal terms of the bargain on which they were in absolute agreement, and regarding which they did not contemplate any variation or change. The reservation in respect of a formal document to be prepared by a vakil only means that it should be put into proper shape and in legal phraseology, with any subsidiary terms that the vakil might consider necessary for insertion in a formal document. The letter of December 4, 1917, by the defendant's attorney to the plaintiff's solicitor shows that the terms of the vernacular document "A" were regarded by them as forming the foundation of the contract. They are as follows:

With reference to your letter of yesterday, delivered to us by your articled clerk after 4 P. M., we note that you agree that the alterations which you had made in the English draft agreement prepared by us and handed to your client are not in consonance with the terms of the Gujarati Chitti which our client give to yours. We, however, do neb agree with you that the English agreement as drafted by us originally, or as sent to you with our letter of the 29th ultimo, is not in consonance with the terms of the said Chitti.

12. Clause 7 of Exhibit "AI," to which reference has already been made, is explicit:

This bargain is for the purchase of this immovable property, together with buildings and structures thereon, (you) have given and I have taken from you the agreement to the above effect, of our free will and pleasure. The 28th day of the month of November in the year 1918 (corresponding with) the 15th of Kartak sud of Samvat 1974, Wednesday.

13. It shows clearly that a completed bargain was intended by the plaintiff.

14. On the whole, therefore, their Lordships are of opinion that the judgment appealed from is correct, and that this appeal should be dismissed with costs. They will humbly advise His Majesty accordingly.

Harichand Mancharam v. Govind Luxman Gokhale

Structured Summary of the Opinion

Factual and Procedural Background

Legal Issues Presented

Arguments of the Parties

Plaintiff's Arguments

Defendant's Arguments

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

Holding and Implications

Harichand Mancharam v. Govind Luxman Gokhale

Comments