Husband entering into agreement to sell proeprty of his wife does not bind her.

Plaintiff in O.S.No.94 of 1979, on the file of Subordinate Judge, Karur, is the appellant.

2. Suit properties which are two shop rooms originally belonged to one Syed Ahamad Sahib, and on his death the properties devolved on his son Syed Gulam Rasool Sahib and two daughters Isathunnissa Begum (5th defendant) and Sathunnissa Begum. A partition was effected between the legal heirs of the original acquirer, and the suit properties were allotted to the two daughters. Sathunnissa Begum died, and her share in the property has devolved on defendants 1 to 4. 1st defendant is the husband of Sathunnissa Begum. Defendants 2 and 3 are the sons and fourth defendant is the daughter of Sathunnissa Begum.

3. Plaintiff came to know that the schedule shop rooms are for sale, and sometime during the third week of October, 1978, along with one broker Murugavel, he contacted defendants 1 and 5. They informed the plaintiff that they were willing to sell the suit properties and they further represented that defendants 2 to 4 also may not have any objection for the sale at a price fixed by them. With a view to ascertain the views of defendants 2 to 4, plaintiff and the broker approached each one of defendants 2 to 4 and when they were informed about the talks which plaintiff had with defendants 1 and 5, defendants 2 to 4 expressed their willingness to sell their respective shares along with defendants 1 and 5, and since first defendant is managing their behalf, they are willing to accept the price that was agreed by him. Plaintiff and P.W.2 approached defendants 1 and 5 for further negotiation, and it was agreed that the price of the suit property was Rs.48,600; advance of Rs.10,000 will be paid; sale deed should be executed free of all encumbrances within two months; an agreement will be written at first and registered sale deed will be executed thereafter. Plaintiff and P.W.2 met defendants 2 to 4 at their respective residence to inform about the terms of agreement, price fixed and time of execution. All the defendants accepted the terms and agreed to execute an agreement for sale and also for execution of the sale deed. This, according to the plaintiff, was effected on 110. 1978. Plaintiff further says that when all the defendants confirmed the terms, there was a concluded oral agreement for sale of the property. On the basis of the terms, plaintiff purchased necessary stamp papers for writing a formal deed of sale agreement on 110. 1978, and went defendants 2 to 4, plaintiff and the broker approached each one of defendants 2 to 4 and when they were informed about the talks which plaintiff had with defendants 1 and 5, defendants 2 to 4 expressed their willingness to sell their respective shares along with defendants 1 and 5, and since first defendant is managing on their behalf, they are willing to accept the price that was agreed by him. Plaintiff and P.W.2 approached defendants 1 and 5 for further negotiation, and it was agreed that the price of the suit property was Rs.48,600 advance of Rs.10,000 will be paid; sale deed should be executed free of all encumbrances within two months; an agreement will be written at first and registered sale deed will be executed thereafter. Plaintiff and P.W.2 met defendants 2 to 4 at their respective residence to inform about the terms of agreement, price fixed and time of execution. All the defendants accepted the terms and agreed to execute an agreement for sale and also for execution of the sale deed. This, according to the plaintiff, was effected on 110. 1978. Plaintiff further says that when all the defendants confirmed the terms, there was a concluded oral agreement for sale of the property. On the basis of the terms, plaintiff purchased necessary stamp papers for writing a formal deed of sale agreement on 110. 1978, and went with broker and document writer Muthusamy Chettiar of Karur to Palakode on 210. 1978. A formal agreement embodying the terms of agreement was written, on 210. 1978 in the