The court emphasized the enforceability of the agreement and rejected the argument of lack of mutuality and violation of S.8 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act.

1. Defendants 10 to 13,15 to 19 and additional defendant No 20, the legal representative of the 14th defendant, are the appellants. The plaintiff instituted the suit for specific performance of Ex. P 3, an agreement to sell the property of minors, executed by the first defendant, father and natural guardian of the minors, on August 4, 1966 in favour of the plaintiff, and for recovery of possession. The first defendant did not turn up for executing the sale deed as agreed to. Thereupon the plaintiff sent a notice on August 5, 1966 to the first defendant; but in the meanwhile, a sale deed Ex. D1 was executed by the 9th defendant, the mother, who is not the natural or legal guardian of the minors, in respect of the suit property in favour of defendants 10 to 19.

2. The suit was contested by defendants 10 to 19 and they mainly contended that they are not aware of Ex. P3 agreement, that it is not true that the first defendant executed such an agreement on 4 81966, that this agreement was brought into existence after defendants 10 to 19 obtained the sale deed in question and that the 9th defendant is their natural guardian. It was also contended that these defendants are bona fide purchasers.

3. The learned Munsiff found that Ex P3 is genuine and valid and was executed by the 1st defendant in favour of the plaintiff, that the proposed sale under Ex P3 is more beneficial to the minors, that the contesting defendants cannot be considered to be bona fide purchasers for value without notice of Ex. P3, that Ex D1 sale deed executed by the mother is void and that the plaintiff is entitled to a decree for specific performance and recover possession of the suit property with mesne profits at the rate of Rs. 10/- per mensem from defendants 10 onwards.

4. On appeal by defendants 10 to 19, the lower appellate court confirmed the findings of the trial court and dismissed the appeal.

5. Sri V. Sankara Menon, learned advocate appearing for the appellants, urged the following points in support of the appeal:

(1) Ex. P3 is not genuine and has not been properly proved.

(2) The appellants are bona fide purchasers without notice of Ex. P3.

(3) Ex. P3 agreement is unenforceable for want of mutuality of contract.

(4) Ex P3 agreement is in violation of sub-section (1) of S 8 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act.

(5) Ex. P3 is invalid in the absence of previous permission of the court to execute a sale deed.

(6) Under sub-section (3) of S.8 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, the appellants who claim under the minors are entitled to challenge the validity of Ex. P3

6. Point Nos.1 and 2: It was argued that there is over-writing over the date in Ex. P3, indicating that the date was corrected and this circumstance would clearly show that this document was fraudulently created subsequent to the execution of Ex. D1 assignment deed in favour of the appellants. There appears to the some over-writing over the date; but this has been explained by the scribe, pw. 2. On this ground alone this document cannot be rejected as a false or fabricated one. According to the plaintiffs, this document was executed by the first defendant on August 4, 1966, as natural guardian of the minors agreeing to sell the property for a consideration of Rs. 700/-. An amount of Rs. 200/-was received by the first defendant towards the sale consideration from the plaintiff on July 29,1966 and another amount of Rs 10/-was received on the date of execution of Ex P3. These facts are stated in Ex. P3. It was (or discharging the debt of Rs.200/- charged on the property, as Kuttan Ezhuthassan was pressing for the same, and also for purchasing a suitable property for the residence of the minors that the first defendant agreed to sell the property to the plaintiff There was an agreement between the first defendant on the one side and pw. 3 and his wife on the other to purchase an item of property for the minors with the balance consideration available after discharging the debt and th