The mother of a minor, as the manager and natural guardian of the minor's undivided interest in a joint Hindu family property, does not require the sanction of the court under Section 8 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, to sell the property.

D. Raju, J.

.1. The above appeal has been filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the judgment of the learned single Judge of this Court dated,111. 1991 in A.S. No. 1271 of 1980 and cross objections filed therein, whereunder the learned single Judge has not only dismissed the appeal filed by the defendants in O.S. No. 85 of 1979 on the file of Sub Court, Chengalpattu, but has also allowed the cross objections filed by the plaintiff, wherein he challenged the decree passed by the learned trial judge in respect of the disallowed portion of the relief claimed.

2. The plaintiff has entered into an agreement of sale dated 26. 1971 with the defendants, whereunder the defendants have agree to sell the one item of the suit properties to the plaintiff for a sum of Rs.9000. Since the same was not sufficient to wipe of all the debts and liabilities, on 18. 1973 the defendants executed and registered this agreement of sale of all the five items for Rs.27,000. The property originally belonged to Kanniappa Mudaliar, who mortgaged the same to Adambakkam Janopakara Saswadha Nidhi Ltd., Alandur. He died in 1964 and the defendants are his heirs, the 1st defendant being the wife, the 2nd defendant being the son and defendants 3 and 4 being daughters. In the light of the threat by the mortgage institution, it become necessary for the defendants to raise funds by again mortgaging the property after obtaining permission of the District Court, Chengalpattu in O.P. No. 9 of 1966. Apart from the above commitments, there appear to be some decrees obtained by some other people against the defendants in addition to the arrears of property tax, driving the defendants to the necessity of selling the properties to clear all those commitments. It appears that the 4th defendant by name Bhuvaneswari, was a minor then and when sanction was sought for to sell the property including the share of the said minor, the District Court, Chengalpattu rejected O.P. No. 93 of 1974 filed therefor. Notwithstanding all these, on the failure of the defendants to execute the sale in terms of the agreement of sale dated 18. 1973, the suit for specific performance came to be filed.

3. The defendants contested the claim. Both parties adduced, during the course of trial, oral and documentary evidence. Thereupon, by a judgment and decree dated 17. 1980, the learned trial Judge, decreed the suit for specific performance of the contract, in so far as it was against defendants 1 to 3 and dismissing the suit claim as against minor 4th defendant.

.4. Aggrieved, defendants filed A.S. No. 1271 of 1980. The plaintiff, who has lost the claim in respect of the share of the minor, filed cross objections. The appeal and the cross objections come to be heard together and the learned single judge, as noticed earlier, not only dismissed the appeal filed by the defendants, but allowed the cross objections and held that there shall be a decree in favour of the plaintiff in respect of the entire property including the share of the 4th defendant also. Hence the above appeal.

5. Mr.Nissar, learned counsel appearing for the appellants contended that it was one of the terms of the agreement itself that sanction for the sale contracted under the agreement in question has to be obtained from the competent court and consequently it was not correct for the plaintiff to contend or the learned single Judge to come to the conclusion that it was not necessary to obtain specific permission under Section 8 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianships consequently the judgment of the learned single Judge is liable to be set aside. As for that portion of the decree concurrently passed against defendants 1 to 3, learned counsel tried to project the stand that the agreement of sale in question was obtained by coercion and undue influence as security for the amount received by the appellants 1 and 2 and, therefore, the relief of specific performance ought to have been rejected in its entirety.