Back
1987 Supreme(Ker) 183
Judges : V.SIVARAMAN NAIR,PAREED PILLAY
SANTHOSH KUMAR - Appellant
Versus
VARGHESE - Respondent
Case No : A.S. No. 344 of 1982
Decided On : 04/10/1987
Advocates Appeared :
P.N. Ramakrishnan Nair; K.V. Sadananda Prabhu; G.S. Madhavan Pillai; For Appellants S. Narayanan Poti; S. Sankarasubbhan; B.V. Deepak; For Respondents
The main legal point established in the judgment is that specific performance cannot be granted for the property belonging to minors without court permission, as mandated by S.8 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act. The court also emphasized the conditions under which specific performance can be granted, as provided in S.12(1) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963.
Headnote:
Specific Performance - Sale of Property - Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act - S.8, Specific Relief Act, 1963 - S.12(1) - [Specific Performance] - [Sale of Property] - [Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act - S.8, Specific Relief Act, 1963 - S.12(1)] - The court discussed the provisions of S.8 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, which enumerates the powers of a natural guardian and mandates court permission for alienation of minor's property. It emphasized that any transaction by a natural guardian without court permission would not be binding on the minors. The court also applied S.12(1) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, which postulates that specific performance cannot be directed if it is not possible to perform a part of the contract, and highlighted the conditions under which specific performance can be granted.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance of a contract for sale of property. The trial court decreed the suit, directing the defendants to execute the sale deed. The defendants, including minor defendants, contested the suit, arguing that the agreement was not genuine and that it affected the minor's rights in the property.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the agreement was not genuine and affected the minor's rights. It held that specific performance could not be granted for the property belonging to the minors without court permission, as mandated by S.8 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act. However, it directed the defendants to execute the sale deed for the remaining property on receipt of the balance consideration.
Issues: The issues involved the genuineness of the agreement, the rights of the minor defendants, and the conditions for granting specific performance under the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act and the Specific Relief Act, 1963.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the provisions of S.8 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, which require court permission for alienation of minor's property, and S.12(1) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, which sets conditions for granting specific performance.
Final Decision: The court modified the judgment and directed the defendants to execute the sale deed for the property minus the portion belonging to the minors, on receipt of the balance consideration. It confirmed the injunction restraining the defendants from executing the sale deed in favor of another party. The appeal was allowed with regard to the property of the minors, and the judgment and decree of the trial court were confirmed in all other respects.
1. Appellants 1 to 4 are defendants 3 to 6 in OS 84 of 1979 of the Additional Sub-Court, Alleppey 5th appellant is the 1st defendant in the suit. The 1st respondent (plaintiff) filed the suit for specific performance of a contract for sale. The suit has been decreed by the trial court and defendants 1 and 2 on their own behalf and on behalf of minor defendants 3 to 6 are directed to execute the sale deed in respect of the plaint property in favour of the plaintiff on receiving the balance sale consideration recited in Ext.A3 within three months. Plaintiff is allowed to execute the decree in case defendants do not comply with the direction of the court. Defendants 1 and 2 were also restrained by injunction from executing the sale deed in respect of the property in favour of the 7th defendant or in favour of any other person.
2. The ranking of the parties as it stood before the trial court is followed in this judgment.
3. Plaintiff filed the suit for specific performance of Ext.A3 agreement dated 5-3-1979 executed by defendants 1 and 2 on their behalf and representing minor defendants 3 to 6 in favour of the plaintiff for sale of the plaint schedule property for a consideration of Rs.14,500/-. It is the case of the plaintiff that he issued a notice through his lawyer expressing his willingness to purchase the property tendering the balance consideration and requesting defendants 1 and 2 to appear before the Sub Registry Office, Vennikulam at 10 a.m. on 26-3-1979 to execute the sale deed in accordance with the agreement and that the 1st defendant replied the notice admitting the execution of the agreement, but contending that the property is in the possession of a stranger under an oral lease. Plaintiff stated that he has been and is still ready and willing to perform his part of the agreement. It is also alleged in the plaint that defendants 1 and 2 had made preparations to alienate the property to the 7th defendant.
4. Second defendant remained exparte. First defendant filed written statement questioning the genuineness of the agreement and refuting the allegation that he received Rs.2500/- as stated in the plaint. For defendants 3 to 6 the court guardian filed written statement contending that the suit is not maintainable against the minor defendants, that the agreement relied on by the plaintiff is not genuine and that it cannot affect the minor's right in their property. It is also contended that the 1st defendant was not competent to execute such an agreement and the agreement was highly detrimental to the interest of the minors.
5. Learned counsel for defendants 3 to 6 submitted that specific performance of the agreement is not possible against the minor defendants, that the agreement is vitiated for non-compliance of the mandatory provisions of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act relating to the alienation of minor's property, that there is nothing to show that the proposed alienation of the minor's property was to their benefit and that the court failed to consider whether the sale of the minor's property was with the due sanction of the District Court.
6. In Ext.A3 agreement there is no mention at all that any portion of the property belongs to the minors and the sale is intended for their benefit. Ext.A4 sale deed whereby defendants got title to the property specifically shows that 18 cents of lard was purchased in the name of the minors. But the plaint proceeds on the basis that the property belonged to defendants 1 and 6 jointly. One of the cardinal contentions of defendants 3 to 6 is that the guardian (1st defendant) has not obtained sanction from the Court under S.8 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 to alienate the property belonging to minors. In Ext. A3 defendants 1 to 2 cleverly avoided to state the right and title of the minors over a portion of the property which they obtained as per Ext. A4 sale deed.
7. S.8 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act enumerates the powers of a natural
