Shyam Kumar Inani v. Vinod Agrawal & Ors.

No enforceability bar due to vagueness – Boundaries identifiable – Undervaluation not conclusive of mala fides – The defendants also contended that the Agreement to Sell was vague and lacked specific demarcation of boundaries, and that the consideration was below market rate: Held: Agreement not invalid for lack of precise boundaries or lower- than-market consideration – No mala fides established – The Court clarified that minor imprecision in boundary description does not affect enforceability where the property can otherwise be identified with certainty – Further, undervaluation alone does not establish fraud or invalidate the contract when possession, consideration, and intention to perform are established. [Paras 34.6] Case Law Cited Thiruvengadam Pillai v. Navaneethammal [2008] 3 SCR 23 : (2008) 4 SCC 530; Mst. Kharbuja Kuer v. Jangbahadur Rai & Ors. [1963] Supp. 1 SCR 456 : AIR 1963 SC 1203; Vidyadhar Vishnupant Ratnaparkhi v. Manikrao Babarao Deshmukh and Ors. [1999] 1 SCR 1168 : (1999) 3 SCC 573; Janki Vashdeo Bhojwani & Anr. v. Indusind Bank Ltd. and Anr. [2004] Supp. 6 SCR 681 : (2005) 2 SCC 217; Rajesh Kumar v. Anand Kumar [2024] 5 SCR 612 : 2024 SCC OnLine SC 981; Thomson Press (India) Ltd. v. Nank Builders & Investors (P) Ltd. [2013] 2 SCR 74 : (2013) 5 SCC 397 – distinguished. Krishna Mohan Kul v. Pratima Maity and Ors. [2003] Supp. 3 SCR 496 : (2004) 9 SCC 468; Yogesh Goyanka v. Govind [2024] 7 SCR 668 : 2024 SCC OnLine SC 169 – referred to.