Vague and uncertain terms in a settlement agreement regarding property sale render it void and unenforceable.

The plaintiff (respondent) and defendant (appellant) are siblings and the sole legal heirs of their deceased parents.

The plaintiff filed a suit for partition of six items of immovable property.

During the pendency of the suit, Item No. 1 was withdrawn due to EFL Act proceedings, and Items 2 to 5 were sold jointly.

Regarding Item No. 6, the defendant produced Ext.B1 (dated 31.03.2022), an undertaking signed by the plaintiff agreeing to accept "whatever" amount the defendant decides to pay her upon the eventual sale of the property.

The defendant argued this document precluded the plaintiff from seeking partition.

The trial court rejected this defense and passed a preliminary decree for partition, which the defendant challenged in this appeal.

1. Whether Ext.B1 document precludes the plaintiff from seeking partition of plaint schedule item No. 6 property.

The court applied Section 35 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, regarding contingent contracts, noting that if an event does not happen within a fixed or reasonable time, the contract becomes void.

It relied on *HPA International v. Bhagwandas Fateh Chand Daswani* (2004) 6 SCC 537 to establish that where no time limit is specified, it is implied that the event must happen within a "reasonable time".

Furthermore, the court applied Section 29 of the Indian Contract Act, which mandates that agreements with uncertain or non-determinable meanings are void.

It supported this using *Kalappa Devara v. Krishna Mitter* (AIR 1945 Mad 10), *Tirumalla Chetti Rangayya Chetti v. Kandalla Srinivasa Raghavacharlu* (AIR 1929 Mad 243), and *Keshavlal Lallubhai Patel v. Lalbhai Trikumlal Mills Ltd.* (AIR 1958 SC 512), all affirming that vague terms regarding price or performance periods render a contract void.

The Court found Ext.B1 legally unenforceable on two primary grounds: timing and certainty.

First, under Section 35, although Ext.B1 set no specific deadline, the phrasing "do not delay this property deal" indicated the parties contemplated a sale in the near proximity of time.

Since four years had elapsed without a sale, the "reasonable time" for the contingency had passed, rendering the contract void.

Second, under Section 29, the Court determined that the phrase "whatever amount" the defendant was willing to pay was neither certain nor capable of being made certain.

Because the quantum was left to the "sweet will" of the defendant, the plaintiff could not have enforced the agreement.

Consequently, a vague and unilateral undertaking could not extinguish the plaintiff's statutory right to partition her ancestral share.

The Court affirmed the trial court's judgment and dismissed the appeal, upholding the preliminary decree for partition of one-half share each in Item No. 6.