Back
2011 Supreme(Pat) 1025
PATNA HIGH COURT
Mungeshwar Sahoo, J.
Mostt. Prabhawati Devi
Versus
Ram Pravesh Singh
FIRST APPEAL No. 19 of 2009
Decided On : MAY 13, 2011
The central legal point established in the judgment is that specific performance of a contract cannot be granted when the party seeking enforcement does not have the legal authority to enter into the contract on behalf of another party, especially in cases involving minors.
Headnote:
specific performance - contract - - [Specific Relief Act, 1963, Section 10, Section 16, Section 20, Section 21, Section 27] - The court discussed the validity of the contract for specific performance and the authority of the defendant to enter into the agreement on behalf of the minor son. The court also considered the readiness and willingness of the plaintiff to perform his part of the contract. The key legal provisions discussed include Section 10 (Enforcement of part of contract), Section 16 (Personal bars to relief), Section 20 (Discretion as to decreeing specific performance), Section 21 (Power to award compensation in certain cases), and Section 27 (Alternative relief). The court's decision was influenced by the interpretation of these provisions, leading to the dismissal of the prayer for specific performance of the contract and the granting of the alternative relief for recovery of earnest money.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance of a contract for the sale of property, alleging that the defendant had agreed to sell the property but failed to execute the sale deed after receiving earnest money. The defendant contested the claim, stating that no such contract was executed and that she had no authority to sell the property of her minor son.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the defendant failed to prove that the contract was forged and fabricated. It also found that the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. However, the court concluded that the contract could not be enforced in favor of the plaintiff due to the defendant's lack of authority to sell the property of the minor son. The court granted the alternative relief for recovery of the earnest money but dismissed the prayer for specific performance of the contract.
Issues: The issues included the maintainability of the suit, the validity of the cause of action, the genuineness of the contract, the plaintiff's readiness and willingness to perform the contract, and the entitlement of the plaintiff to the decree sought.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the contract could not be enforced in favor of the plaintiff due to the defendant's lack of authority to sell the property of the minor son. The court also considered the equitable considerations and the hardship that would be caused to the defendant if specific performance was directed.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal in part, modifying the judgment and decree to grant the alternative relief for recovery of the earnest money while dismissing the prayer for specific performance of the contract.
Mungeshwar Sahoo, J.
1. The Defendant has filed this First Appeal against the judgment and decree dated, 22nd December, 2008 passed by Sri Nagendra Prasad Tripathi, the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division) Ist, Buxar in Title Suit No.85 of 2004 decreeing the Plaintiff-Respondent suit for specific performance.
2. The Plaintiff-Respondent Ram Pravesh Singh filed aforesaid title Suit No. 85 of 2004 for specific performance of contract dated, 5th May, 2001 alleging that the Defendant and her husband had purchased Schedule I property in the name of the Defendant and her minor Son Govind Thakur. The Defendant Appellant was the guardian of her minor son, Govind Thakur. She herself and being the guardian of minor son agreed to sale Schedule I land of the plaint for Rs. 4,50,000 in presence of her husband Sheojee Thakur and other witnesses. Earnest money of Rs. 4 lacs was paid immediately and on 5th May, 2001, she executed a Mahadnama in favour of the Plaintiff after receiving earnest money of Rs. 4 lacs. The Defendant-Appellant put her signature and endorsed regarding receiving of the said earnest money. The Defendant promised to execute sale deed within 2nd May, 2004 after receiving balance amount of Rs. 50,000. The Plaintiff along with witnesses several times approached the Defendant and tendered the balance consideration of Rs. 50,000 and requested to execute sale deed but, she avoided to execute the sale deed. Lastly, on 2nd April, 2004, the Plaintiff sent a Registered Legal notice to the Defendant but, no sale deed was executed. The Plaintiff was always ready and willing and is still ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. Hence, the Plaintiff filed the suit for specific performance of contract.
3. On being noticed, the Defendant-Appellant appeared and filed contesting written statement. The main defense of the Appellant is that no such contract was executed on 5th May, 2001 and no earnest money was paid to her. Her husband, Sheojee Thakur was drunkard and he died in the year 2002 leaving behind the widow and her two sons, Govind Thakur aged about 10 years and Chhotu Thakur aged about 3 years and daughter, Meena Kumari aged about 13 years. The Defendant is helpless lady and, therefore, the alleged deed of agreement was prepared and fabricated in collusion with the scribe and the witnesses.
4. In view of the above pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the learned Court below:
(I) Is the suit as framed maintainable?
(II) Has the Plaintiff got valid cause of action for the suit?
(Ill) Whetherthe Mahadnama deed dated, 5th May, 2001 is genuine and executed by the Defendant?
(IV) Is the Plaintiff ready and willing to perform his part of contract?
(V) Is the Plaintiff entitled for a decree as sought for?
(VI) To what other relief or reliefs the Plaintiff is entitled?
5. After trial, the learned Court below held that the Defendant has failed to prove that the Mahadnama dated, 5th May, 2001 is forged and fabricated. The Plaintiff is always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract and accordingly, the Plaintiffs suit was decreed.
6. Mr. Gauri Shanker Prasad, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant submitted that the Appellant is not the owner of the entire suit property. The Registered deed stands in the name of her minor son and mother is never the guardian of minor son during life time of father. There was no agreement to sell the property of the minor son also nor the agreement was executed on behalf of the minor son but, in the plaint, the property of the minor has also been included. According to the learned Counsel, only 2 katha land is in the name of Appellant whereon house has been constructed and the helpless lady is residing in the said house with her children, therefore, if specific performance of contract is directed, it will cause great hardship to the Appellant. The learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that the Plaintiff-Respondent taking advan
