SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

1948 Supreme(SC) 16

PRIVY COUNCIL [ON APPEAL FROM THEEAST INDIES]
LORD SIMONDS, LORD MORTON OF HENRYTON AND SIR MADHAVAN NAIR.
SRIKAKULAM SUBRAHMANYAM - Appellant
Versus
KURRA SUBBA RAO - Respondents
On appeal from the High Court at Madras.
Decided On : Feb. 26. 1948.

Advocates:
Solicitors for appellants :Douglas Grant & Co. Solicitors for respondent: Lambert & White.

A minor is considered the "transferor" under Section 53a of the Transfer of Property Act if a guardian enters into a binding contract for the minor's benefit, thereby barring the minor from recovering possession of the property from a transferee in part performance.

Headnote:(A) Transfer of Property Act, 1882 - Section 53a - Part Performance - Indian Contract Act, 1872 - Section 11 - Competency to contract - Contract entered into by a guardian on behalf of a minor for the discharge of debts and for the benefit of the minor - Where the contract is within the competence of the guardian and is for the benefit of the minor, it is binding on the minor - In such a case, the minor is the "transferor" within the meaning of Section 53a of the Transfer of Property Act - The minor is debarred from enforcing any right in respect of the property against the transferee who has taken possession in part performance of the contract.

(B) Guardian’s power - Act of a guardian in entering into a contract of sale on behalf of a minor ward is an act done on behalf of the minor - If the contract is binding and the minor is the owner of the property, the minor is the person who most aptly answers the description of "the transferor" under the law of part performance.

Facts of the case:
A guardian entered into a written agreement to sell lands belonging to a minor to discharge the debts of the minor's deceased father. The purchase price was applied to pay off promissory notes and a mortgage. The purchasers paid the mortgage and were let into possession of the lands, but no formal sale deed was executed or registered. Upon reaching majority, the respondent sought recovery of possession and mesne profits.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the guardian had the power to enter into the contract for the purpose of discharging the debts, and the contract was necessary and beneficial to the minor. Since the contract was binding and part-performed, the protection of Section 53a of the Transfer of Property Act applies.

Issues: Whether a minor, when a contract to transfer immovable property is entered into by a guardian on their behalf, is the "transferor" within the meaning of Section 53a of the Transfer of Property Act.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that while a minor cannot contract personally, a contract entered into by a guardian for the minor's benefit and within the guardian's competence is binding on the minor. As the minor is the owner of the property and the contract is made on their behalf, the minor is the "transferor" under Section 53a. Consequently, the minor is barred from recovering possession from a transferee who has performed their part of the contract.

Result: Appeal allowed.

Legal Category Hierarchy

  • property law
    • transfer of property
      • part performance
  • contract law
    • capacity to contract
      • minors and guardians
  • family law
    • hindu law
      • joint family property and debts

Judgement

Appeal (No. 31 of 1946) from a judgment and decree of the High Court (November 22, 1943) which affirmed a judgment and decree of the District Judge of Guntur (April 20, 1942) which had reversed a decree of the Subordinate Judge of Bapatla (July 31, 1939).

The following facts are taken from the judgment of the Judicial Committee. The facts giving rise to this appeal were not in dispute, having regard to the findings of the courts in India. The respondent and his father constituted a Hindu joint family. The respondents father died on October 4, 1935, leaving him surviving his widow and the respondent, who was then and was still a minor. Before his death the respondents father had incurred certain debts, including a debt of Rs. 16,000 owing to the appellants and secured by two promissory notes, and a debt of Rs. 1,200 owing to one Ramayya and secured by a mortgage. By an agreement in writing, dated November 29, 1935, the respondent " being " minor by guardian and mother Manikyamma," to quote the words of the agreement, agreed to sell the lands in suit to the appellants for Rs. 17,200. The purchase price was to be applied as to Rs. 16,000 in discharging the promissory notes and as to Rs. 1,200 in discharging the mortgage debt owing to Ramayya. The contract provided that a sale deed was to be executed, registered and delivered to the appellants, at their expense and on their request.

The appellants duly paid off the mortgage debt of Rs. 1,200 and in December, 1935 they were let into possession of the lands contracted to be sold, but no sale deed was ever executed or registered. On September, 10, 1938, the respondent commenced the present suit by his mother and next friend Manikyamma, claiming possession of the lands contracted to be sold and mesne profits. The propriety of the contract of sale was challenged before the Subordinate Judge, but, to quote the judgment of the High Court, " The courts below have found, "and the finding has not been challenged before us, that the " plaintiffs father had left a large amount of debts which " could not have been discharged from the income of the family " properties and that it was necessary and beneficial to sell " some of them for the purpose." The Subordinate Judge held, inter alia, that s. 54a of the Transfer of Property Act protected the appellants, and he dismissed the suit. His decision was reversed by the District Judge of Guntur, who made an order for possession in favour of the respondent, subject to his paying to the appellants Rs. 17,200, with interest from the date of suit. An appeal by the present appellants to the High Court of Judicature at Madras (Wadsworth and Patanjali Sastri, JJ.) was dismissed Leave to appeal to His Majesty in Council was given by the High Court of Judicature at Madras on the ground that the case involved a substantial question of law as to the true construction of

s. 53a of the Transfer of Property Act. That section was in the following terms

" 53a. Part Performance.—Where any person contracts " to transfer for consideration any immovable property by "writing signed by him or on his behalf from which the " terms necessary to constitute the transfer can be "ascertained with reasonable certainty,

" and the transferee has, in part performance of the contract, taken possession of the property or any part thereof, " or the transferee, being already in possession, continues " in possession in part performance of the contract and has " done some act in furtherance of the contract, " and the transferee has performed or is willing to perform "his part of the contract, "then, notwithstanding that the contract, though required " to be registered has not been registered, or, where there " is an instrument of transfer, that the transfer has not been " completed in the manner prescribed therefor by the law for " the time being in force, the transferor or any person claiming under him shall be debarred from enforcing against the " transferee and persons claim











Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top