Back
High Court Of Delhi
ROOMAL - Appellant
Versus
SIRI NIWAS - Respondent
REGULAR FIRST APPEAL 52 of 1973
Decided On : 01/14/1985
SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE - MINORITY - GUARDIAN'S POWER - SALE OF PROPERTY - MUTUALITY - HINDU LAW - SPECIFIC RELIEF ACT, 1963 - SECTION 20(4) - HINDU MINORITY AND GUARDIANSHIP ACT, 1956 - SECTION 8.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiffs, Siri Niwas and two minors, Satish Kumar and Brij Narain Singh, sued Roomal and Jodha for specific performance of an agreement to sell a residential plot. The trial court decreed the suit in favor of Siri Niwas but dismissed the suit as regards the minor plaintiffs. The vendors and the minor plaintiffs filed appeals challenging the decree and the dismissal, respectively.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the contract entered into by the guardian on behalf of the minor was enforceable and that the minor plaintiffs could sue for specific performance. The court also held that the purchasers were not bound to pay the price of one bigha of land as the agreement to sell specified "about one bigha" and the actual area of the plot was found to be 817.9 sq. yards.
Issues: 1. Whether the minor plaintiffs could sue for specific performance. 2. Whether the purchasers were bound to pay the price of one bigha of land.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the minor plaintiffs could sue for specific performance because: - The Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, empowered the natural guardian of a Hindu minor to enter into a contract on behalf of the minor. - The contract would be binding and enforceable if it was for the benefit of the minor. - The guardian had substantial legal capacity to act on behalf of the minor and had full contractual powers. - The restriction on the guardian's powers was that he must act for the benefit of the minor and not to his detriment. - The court overruled the Privy Council decision in Mir Sarwarjan v. Fakruddin, which held that a contract entered into by a guardian on behalf of a minor was not enforceable. 2. The court held that the purchasers were not bound to pay the price of one bigha of land because: - The agreement to sell specified "about one bigha", which left the quantity of land altogether uncertain. - The parties contemplated some other criterion of the quantity of land that was agreed to be sold. - The area was precisely described in the plan incorporated in the agreement, and the exact quantity of land comprised in the boundaries of the plan was agreed to be conveyed. - The expression "about one bigha" was a word of estimate and expectation, and the words of incorporation of the plan in the instrument were "words of contract".
Final Decision: The court dismissed the vendors' appeal and allowed the purchasers' appeal. The court directed the vendors to execute the sale deed within one month, failing which the trial court would execute the conveyance at the cost of the vendors.
( 1 ) THIS case is classicillustration of law s delay. The purchasers agreed to buy aparcel of land on 13-1-1961. The suit for specific performancewas instituted on 18/09/1961. The trial court decreedthe suit in favour of one of the purchasers on February 2,1973. The present appeals were filed in 1973. And nowin 1985 we are deciding the appeals. Thus this litigation hastaken a quarter of a century.
( 2 ) THE plaintiffs Siri Niwas, and the two minors Satishkumar and Brij Narain Singh, sued Roomal and Jodha forspecific performance. The suit was decreed in favour ofsiri Niwas. As regards the minor plaintiffs the suit wasdismissed. From the order of the Subordinate Judge dated2-2-1973 two appeals have been brought. R. F. A. 52 of 1973is the appeal of the vendors. Roomal and Jodha. Theychallenge the decree of specific performance obtained bysiri Niwas against (hem. R. F. A. 80 of 1973 is the appeal ofthe two minor plaintiffs namely, Satish and Brij Narain Singh. They contest the view of the trial court that they cannot suefor specific performance. This judgment will govern themboth.
( 3 ) THESE are the facts. On 13-1-1951, the defendantsroomal and Jodha, agreed to sell a residential plot beatingkhasra No. 208113211 measuring "about one bigha" withinthe abadi of Zamrudpur, Delhi, to the plaintiffs, STi Niwas,and the two minors, Satish Kumar and Brij Narain Singh. The agreement to sell was executed. The defendant agreedto complete the sale by 28-2-1961. The defendants did notperform their part of the agreement. They did not executethe sale deed. The plaintiffs brought the suit for specificperformance. As we have said, the suit was decreed " favourof Siri Niwas. The minors claim was declined.
( 4 ) IN the appeals three question. , arise for decision. Thefirst question is whether the minors can sue for specific performance. The trial judge held that. the agreement to sellcould be specifically enforced only by Siri Niwas. plaintiffno. 1, since he was a major and that the minor plaintiffs2 and 3 could not sue for specific performance. He held thatthe agreement to purchase (PX) was beyond the capacity ofthe guardians and did not bind the minors personally. Forthis view he followed the decisions in Sunder Singh v. Jiwansingh, (1970) 72 Punjab Law Reporter 218 (1 ). Mir Sarwarjanv. Fakruddia, 39 Indian Appeals 1 (2) and Subrahmanyam v. Subba Rao, AIR 1948 PC 95 (3 ).
( 5 ) WE cannot accept this view. This question is nowconcluded by a recent decision of the. Supreme Court Manik Chand v. Ramchandra, AIR 1981 S. C. 519 (4 ). Thecase settles an important point of Hindu Law on whichthere was much controversy. In the High Courts (here wasa conflict of opinion. There were two schools of thought. Oneschool held that the Privy Council decision in Mir Sarwarjanv. Fakruddin (supra) held the field and therefore a contractentered into by a natural guardian of a Hindu minor for thepurchase of property was not enforceable on behalf of theminor. They held that he must fail if he sucs for specific. performance for the reason that it is not within the competence of a guardian of a minor to bind the minor or minor sestate by a contract for the purchase of immovable propertyas there is no mutuality. This school believed in the doctrineof mutuality on which the decision of the Privy Council inmir Sarwarjan is based. On the other hand, the other school held that Mir Sarwarjan was no longer good law afterthe decision of the Privy Council in Subrahmanyam v. Subbarao (supra) and therefore a minor s contract entered into byhis guardian can be enforced if it is for the benefit of theminor or his estate, In the governing decision of Mohri Bibiv. Dhurmadas Ghose (1903) 30 I. A. 114 (5) the Privy Councilheld that a minor s contract is void and cannot be ratified. Nor there can be estoppel against the minor. But where theguardian of a minor enters into a contract on behalf of theminor the position is different. The powers of the naturalguardian are
AI
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
