Agreement to sell signed by vendor alone followed by purchaser's acceptance constitutes a valid, enforceable contract.

The plaintiff (appellant) entered into an unregistered agreement to sale dated 04.08.2019 with the defendant (respondent) for a triple-storied building in Patna for a total consideration of Rs. 15,00,000/-

the plaintiff paid an initial earnest money of Rs. 50,000/- and subsequent amounts totaling Rs. 3,50,000/-, which the defendant acknowledged via signatures and Thumb Impressions (L.T.I.) on the back of the agreement (Ext.-2 to Ext.-2/B)

Despite legal notices, the defendant refused to execute the sale deed, leading to a suit for specific performance. The suit proceeded ex-parte as the defendant failed to appear

The Trial Court dismissed the suit on the technical ground that the agreement was not signed by both parties at the specified place, thus lacking proof of a concluded contract

Sections 2(e), 2(h), and 10 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, which define agreements and contracts, noting that unless a specific law requires otherwise, even oral agreements to sell are valid

Aloka Bose v. Parmatma Devi (2009) 2 SCC 582, which established that in India, an agreement to sale signed by the vendor alone and accepted by the purchaser is a valid, specifically enforceable contract

Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, which mandates that the plaintiff must plead and prove continuous readiness and willingness to perform essential terms of the contract

The High Court found that the Trial Court's dismissal was based on a "third case" not supported by law—the requirement that both parties must sign the document simultaneously

The High Court observed that the essential ingredients of a contract under Section 10 of the Contract Act were present: a proposal, acceptance via payment of substantial consideration (Rs. 3,50,000/-), and acknowledgment of receipt by the defendant’s L.T.I./signatures (Ext.-2 to Ext.-2/B)

Applying Aloka Bose, the court held that the plaintiff's acceptance was proved through his conduct and payments, making the vendor's signature sufficient for enforceability

The Court critiqued the Trial Court for failing to primary evaluate "readiness and willingness" under Section 16(c), despite the plaintiff issuing multiple legal notices and paying significant earnest money

The Trial Court’s focus on technical signatures was deemed a patent illegality that ignored recorded evidence of part-performance

The appeal was allowed, and the judgment and decree dated 13.10.2022 were set aside. The High Court remanded the matter to the Trial Court for fresh adjudication on merits, directing the court to afford both parties an opportunity to adduce evidence and contest the matter