ORDER :

Manindra Mohan Shrivastava, J.

1. This appeal is directed against impugned judgment and decree dated 30/11/1999 passed by the Second Additional District Judge, Raipur in Civil Suit No. 5-A/99 whereby, the learned Trial Court refused to grant relief of specific performance of contract to the appellant/plaintiff.

2. The relevant facts of this case are that the appellant/plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance of contract. The plaintiff claimed in the suit that defendant/Satpal Punjabi purchased a plot admeasuring 1500 sq. ft. in the name of his minor sons namely Kunal and Jitendra. Thereafter, defendant-Satpal entered into an agreement with the plaintiff to sell the property for a consideration of Rs. 1,87,500/-. Pursuant to the agreement, an earnest money of Rs. 20,000/- was given to the defendant. Thereafter, on different dates, certain amounts were paid and in all, Rs. 1 lakh was received by the defendant. According to the plaintiff, defendant - Satpal was under an obligation to obtain no objection certificate from the authorities for execution of the sale deed. As the defendant failed to do so, a legal notice was served which he refused to accept. Thereafter, a notice was published by the plaintiff in the news paper expressing his willingness to execute the sale deed.

3. Defendant - Satpal filed a written statement before the Court below stating that according to the terms and conditions of the agreement, it was the plaintiff who was under an obligation to execute the sale deed and that the plaintiff had no sufficient means.

4. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, learned Trial Court framed an issue as to whether defendant - Satpal was under an obligation to obtain no objection certificate from the authorities? Another issue was also framed as to whether the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his part of contract?

5. The only issue arising for consideration in this appeal is whether the plaintiff was entitled to a decree of specific performance when the property not only belongs to defendant No. 1 but admittedly to his two sons i.e. defendants 2 and 3 namely Kunal and Jitendra.

6. Learned Trial Court, in para 12 of its judgment has held that the property belongs to Satpal Punjabi and his two minor sons. The finding of the Trial Court is that in view of the provisions contained in Section 8(2) of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 (for short "the Act of 1956"), the property of minor could not be sold without the permission of the Court and therefore, the agreement is voidable at the option of the proposed vendor.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the provisions of law as contained in the Act of 1956 as has been referred to the impugned judgment, does not ipso facto prohibits entering into an agreement to sell the property and once permission is obtained by the Court, specific performance of agreement could be granted. He would further submit that the bar is against sale and not against an agreement to sell the property.

The other submission is that infact, under the terms and conditions of the agreement and as was agreed to between the parties, it was the obligation of the proposed vendor to get appropriate orders from the Court and therefore, in such a situation, a decree could be granted which could be executed upon grant of permission by the jurisdictional court.

8. Learned counsel for the respondents oppose submission and submit that the decree of specific performance cannot be granted because no sale deed could be executed unless there is permission granted under Section 8 of the Act, 1956. He submits that even if it is assumed that there was an agreement between the parties to seek permission of the Court, it is not obligatory on the Court to necessarily grant permission. Therefore, in respect of such a contract, no specific performance could be granted in view of Section 14 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (for short "the Act of 1963").

9. It is not in dispute that the proper