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

2025 Supreme(Kar) 1560

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH
RAVI V. HOSMANI, J.
 
Smt. Sugalamma, W/o. Ramanagouda Biradar – Appellant
Versus
Aishwarya, D/o. Shankaragouda Yalawar and Anr. – Respondents
Regular First Appeal No. 200092 of 2020 (SP)
Decided On : 11-08-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant :Sri Brijesh Patil, Advocate
For the Respondents:Sri G.B. Yadav, Advocate

The execution of a sale agreement by a mother's guardian on behalf of a minor is not void but voidable, and the plaintiff's readiness and willingness to perform must be established throughout the contract's duration.

Headnote:(A) Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 - Section 8 - Limitation Act, 1963 - Article 54 - Specific performance suit - Dismissal of the suit by trial court due to erroneous findings on execution of sale agreement, readiness and willingness of plaintiff, and applicability of section 8 of HMGA - Agreement executed on behalf of minor by guardian was held voidable and not void - Plaintiff had fulfilled readiness and willingness, and suit filed was within the limitation period. (Paras 12, 26, 30 and 33)

(B) Specific Performance - Readiness and willingness - Continuous readiness and willingness must be established from the date of the contract until the decree. (Paras 27, 28, 29)

(C) Burden of proof in specific performance claims - Lies with the plaintiff to establish lawful execution of the agreement even if defendant does not contest. (Paras 24, 22)

Facts of the case:
The plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance regarding a property where an agreement to sell was executed in 2010 by the minor's mother on behalf of her minor daughter. The trial court dismissed the suit citing procedural issues and limitations.

Findings of Court:
The agreement was valid, though executed during the minor's minority, and the plaintiff demonstrated continued readiness and willingness to fulfill the contract. The suit was in compliance with the limitation period requirements.

Issues: The main questions concerned the validity of the sale agreement executed by the minor's guardian, the plaintiff's readiness and willingness, and the applicability of section 8 of HMGA.

Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the agreement was not rendered void; the refusal to perform by the defendant constituted a valid cause of action for the plaintiff, and the failure to timely challenge the agreement barred any claims regarding its invalidity.

Result: Appeal allowed; the order of the trial court was set aside, and the defendants were directed to execute the sale deed in favor of the plaintiff.

JUDGMENT :

RAVI V. HOSMANI, J.

Challenging judgment and decree dated 15.06.2020 passed by Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Muddebihal, in O.S.no.37/2019, this appeal is filed.

2. Sri Brijesh Patil, learned counsel submitted that appeal was by unsuccessful plaintiff in suit for specific performance etc. Said suit was filed stating that during year 2010, land bearing Sy.no.40/2B measuring 04 Acres 03 guntas situated at Balawat village, Muddebihal Taluk, Vijayapura District (for short ‘suit property’), jointly belonged to minor defendant and her mother - Prabhavati wife of Shankaragouda Yalawar.

3. Brief facts as stated were, defendant’s mother needed money for legal necessities and to discharge loans incurred for treatment of her husband. For said purpose, she intended to sell suit property. As plaintiff offered highest price, acting on her own behalf and on behalf of defendant, she executed agreement of sale dated 25.02.2010, agreeing to sell suit property to plaintiff for total sale consideration of Rs.12,00,000/-, by receiving Rs.11,50,000/- as advance on same day and agreeing to receive balance amount of Rs.50,000/- at time of execution of sale deed. Said agreement was executed in presence of village elders/witnesses.

4. Thereafter, though plaintiff approached with balance amount, she kept postponing execution of sale deed. And on 19.09.2013, defendant’s mother died. As on said date, defendant was still a minor. She attained age of majority about two years prior to suit. It was also stated that plaintiff approached with balance amount calling upon her to execute sale deed. However, she postponed same and failed to respond to legal notice dated 03.01.2018 got issued by plaintiff calling upon her to execute sale deed. Stating that same amounted to refusal to perform her part of contract giving rise to cause of action, suit was filed.

5. And as despite service of summons, defendant did not appear and was placed ex-parte, trial Court framed following points for consideration:

1. Whether the plaintiff proves the due execution of agreement of sale dated 25.2.2010 by the mother of the defendant on her behalf and on behalf of the defendant?

2. Whether the plaintiff proves that she has always been ready and willing to perform her part of contract?

3. Whether the suit is barred by limitation?

4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief claimed in the suit?

5. What order or decree?

6. Thereafter, plaintiff got examined herself and one witness as PWs.1 and 2 and got marked Exs.P1 to P5.

7. On consideration of same in light of arguments on behalf of plaintiff, trial Court answered points no.1 and 3 in affirmative, points no.2 and 4 in negative and point no.5 by dismissing suit. Aggrieved plaintiff was in appeal.

8. It was submitted, after filing of present appeal, defendant executed Gift Deed in respect of suit property on 19.10.2020 in favour of her husband. Therefore, he was arrayed as respondent no.2. It was submitted, said alienation would be hit by Section 52 of Transfer of Property Act, 1882 .

9. It was submitted, admittedly suit property was jointly owned by defendant and her mother. As defendant was still a minor, agreement of sale was executed by defendant’s mother on behalf of defendant also, as her guardian. It was submitted, agreement contained express condition that sale deed was to be executed by defendant also after she attained age of majority and loans on suit property were cleared. Thereafter, defendant’s mother died leaving behind defendant as sole legal heir. It was submitted, defendant attained age of majority on 04.09.2017 and plaintiff, who was none other than her grandmother called upon defendant to come forward to execute sale deed in terms of agreement of sale.

10. After making several oral requests, which failed to yield result, on 03.01.2018, she got issued legal notice demanding defendant to come forward to execute sale deed by receiving balance sale consideration of Rs.50,000/-. In view of failure, which amounted to ref

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
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top