Promises held out over loudspeakers can not constitute binding representation
The principal contention of the plaintiffs, is that a representation was made to the purchasers by or on behalf of the co-owners that plot No. 19 would be reserved for a Bharaashala, that the purchasers paid high prices for the plots by reason of that representation and therefore the co-owners had no right to sell the plot to Manohari Devi who, in turn, had no right to sell it to the defendantThere are numerous difficulties in accepting this contention. There is no evidence as to who, on behalf of the co-owners, made the particular representation. It is said that it was announced over a loudspeaker, while the housing scheme was being advertised, that a plot will be reserved for a Dharmshala. Who made the announcement and under whose authority are matters on which plaintiffs have been unable to, shed any light. Thus, the argument lacks basis. Besides, though modem contrivances like microphones are useful aids in propagation of views or dissemination of information, they have not yet acquired notoriety carriers of binding representations. Promises held out over loudspeakers are often claptraps of politics. In the Instant case, the announcement, was if at all, a puffing up of property put up for sale.
Supreme Court of India
Banwari Lal And Ors. vs Sukhdarshan Dayal on 12 December, 1972
Equivalent citations: AIR 1973 SC 814, (1973) 1 SCC 294
Bench: J Shelat, Y Chandrachud
