Jarabanoo Firoz Shah Moos vs Andhra Pradesh Chemist & Druggistassociation, Hyderabad & Or
- Neutral1995 INSC 502
- SCR[1995] Supp (3) SCR 94
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where a party to a contract does not dispute that she agreed to execute the agreement and does not aver that she did not read its contents, fraud cannot be established merely on the ground that the consideration stated in the agreement differs from what she claims was orally agreed, and the contract cannot be set aside on that basis. Where a party has agreed to and executed a contract without averring non-reading or non-agreement to its terms, she is entitled only to compensation for the quantifiable loss resulting from the discrepancy in consideration, not to avoid the contract itself.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
RESPONDENT: ANDHRA PRADESH CHEMIST & DRUGGISTASSOCIATION, HYDERABAD & OR
DATE OF JUDGMENT25/08/1995
BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. HANSARIA B.L. (J)
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
O R D E R This Court on September 14, 1994 passed an order in the main appeal, viz., C.A. No.279 of 1987. As some typographical mistakes had crept in the said order and to avoid further litigation between the parties, we hereby direct the relevant part of the said order to be modified and read as under:
"This appeal by Special Leave arises from the Judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court of A.P. in Civil Appeal No.1/77. The appeal of the respondent-Association was allowed by the High Court. The Trial Court dismissed the suit of the Association for specific performance of the agreement dated July 26, 1967, agreeing to convey the property bearing No.5-9-262, Hyderabad. From the averments of the appellant herself, it is clear that the agreement was for Rs.2,42,000/- but she came to know that the consideration was shown in the agreement at Rs.2,10,000/-. In consequence, she lost Rs.20,000/- as she contended that the agreement was vitiated by fraud and that, therefore, the decrees cannot be enforced since the respondents were parties to the fraud. We find no force in the contention. At best it is not the case that she did not agree to execute the agreement. It is also not her case that she did not read the contents of the agreement. Under these circumstances, it cannot be said that there is any fraud played on her. At best it can be said that the appellant is not a consenting party to the actual consideration of Rs.2,10,000/-. We give the benefit to the appellant only to the extent of her share of Rs.20,000/- and the respondents are directed to pay Rs.10,000/- and further a sum of Rs.20,000/- towards interest. The order of the High Court is accordingly confirmed with the above modification.....".
The remaining part of the order would remain as it is.
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free