Back
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE R. BANUMATHI & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. VENUGOPAL
Manoharakumari
Versus
Anitha & Another
Appeal Suit No.773 of 2005
Decided On : 24-03-2010
specific performance - agreement of sale - Hindu Minority & Guardianship Act, 1956 - 8(2) - 20 of the Specific Relief Act - [1, 2, 3, 4, 5] - The court analyzed the evidence and materials on record and held that the execution of the agreement of sale was well proved by the Plaintiff. The court also held that obtaining sanction from the competent Court for entering into the agreement for alienation of the share of minors was necessary as per the agreement. The court declined the relief of specific performance and ordered the refund of the advance amount with interest. Defendants 2 and 3 were directed to pay costs to the Plaintiff throughout.
Fact of the Case:
The Plaintiff entered into an agreement of sale with the Defendants for a house property. The Defendants denied the execution of the sale deed, alleging fraud and forgery. The Plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance, stating that she was always ready and willing to perform her part of the contract. The trial Court held that the agreement of sale was not proved to be genuine and that the Plaintiff cannot insist upon execution of the sale deed by the Defendants. The trial Court also held that the agreement of sale was not proved to be in the interest of the minors and that the permission from the Court was necessary for the sale.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the execution of the agreement of sale was well proved by the Plaintiff. The court also held that obtaining sanction from the competent Court for entering into the agreement for alienation of the share of minors was necessary as per the agreement. The court declined the relief of specific performance and ordered the refund of the advance amount with interest. Defendants 2 and 3 were directed to pay costs to the Plaintiff throughout.
Issues: The issues considered by the court included the genuineness of the agreement of sale, the binding nature of the agreement on Defendants No.2 and 3, the necessity of obtaining sanction from the Court for entering into the agreement for alienation of the share of minors, the alleged breach of contract by the 1st Defendant, and the entitlement of the Plaintiff to the equitable relief of decree for specific performance.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the execution of the agreement of sale was well proved by the Plaintiff and that obtaining sanction from the competent Court for entering into the agreement for alienation of the share of minors was necessary as per the agreement. The court declined the relief of specific performance and ordered the refund of the advance amount with interest. Defendants 2 and 3 were directed to pay costs to the Plaintiff throughout.
Final Decision: The judgment and decree made in the trial Court were set aside, and the appeal was partly allowed. Defendants 2 and 3 were held liable to pay the Plaintiff the advance amount with interest, and costs throughout the suit and the appeal.
This case involves a dispute over an agreement of sale of a house property entered into by the Plaintiff and the Defendant, who was the mother of minor Defendants 2 and 3. The Plaintiff paid an advance amount of Rs.3,20,000/- towards the purchase, and the agreement stipulated that the sale deed could only be executed after obtaining court permission for the sale of the minors' shares, as per the terms of the agreement (!) (!) .
The Plaintiff contended that she was always ready and willing to perform her part of the contract, and her evidence was supported by witnesses and bank documents confirming the payment (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) . The Defendant, who was the mother of the minors, initially filed a petition seeking court permission to sell the minors' shares but later withdrew it, which was considered a breach of the agreement (!) (!) .
The Defendant denied the execution of the sale agreement, alleging forgery and fraud, and claimed that the agreement was invalid because the sale consideration was not received by her and that she lacked authority to sell the minors' shares without court approval. The trial court found that the agreement was not properly proved to be genuine due to doubts about signatures and the Defendant's denial, and held that the agreement was not in the minors' best interest without court permission. Consequently, the court declined to decree specific performance and ordered the refund of the advance amount with interest, also holding the Defendants liable for costs (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .
On appeal, the higher court re-evaluated the evidence and concluded that the execution of the agreement was sufficiently proved, and that the agreement was made for the benefit of the minors. The court observed that the withdrawal of the court petition by the Defendant was a breach of contract. It further held that obtaining court permission for alienating the minors' shares was not legally necessary in this context, especially since the Plaintiff was willing to proceed even without such permission (!) (!) (!) .
Ultimately, the appellate court set aside the trial court's decision declining specific performance, and instead ordered the Defendant to refund the advance amount of Rs.3,20,000/- with interest at 7.5% from the date of suit. The court also directed the Defendant's heirs to pay costs throughout the proceedings (!) .
R. Banumathi, J.
Being aggrieved by the dismissal of the suit for specific performance, the unsuccessful Plaintiff has filed this appeal. For convenience, the parties are referred to as arrayed in the suit.
2. The case of Plaintiff is that she and the Defendants entered into an agreement of sale dated 30.6.1994 agreeing to sell the suit schedule house property for Rs.16.75 lakhs and a sum of Rs.3,20,000/- was paid by the Plaintiff to the 1st Defendant by means of a Pay Order bearing No.398659 dated 26. 1994 drawn on the Vijaya Bank, Dr.Nanjappa Road, Coimbatore towards part of sale consideration and the Pay order was encashed by the 1st Defendant. Defendants 2 and 3 are minor daughters of 1st Defendant. As per the terms of the sale agreement, sale deed has to be executed after getting permission of the competent Court in so far as the share of minors Defendants 2 and 3. Jayaram - 1st Defendants husband was the absolute owner of the suit property and he died intestate on 8. 1991. After death of Jayaram, Venkatalakshmi – mother of of Jayaram and Snehalatha, sister of Jayaram have relinquished their right in the suit property in favour of Defendants by virtue of Ex.A.19 - release deed. Further case of Plaintiff is that to obtain permission of the Court to alienate the shares of minors, the 1st Defendant filed H.M.G.O.P.No.433 of 1994 before the Sub-Court, Coimbatore. In the said H.M.G.O.P., Plaintiff filed application I.A.No.457 of 1995 to implead herself. According to Plaintiff, with an intention to defeat the legitimate right of Plaintiff, by filing memo, 1st Defendant has not pressed the main O.P., and the Court dismissed the H.M.G.O.P., as well as her impleading petition. According to the Plaintiff, she was always ready and willing to perform her part of contract. Only the Defendants have not honoured their commitments under the sale agreement. After issuance of the pre-suit notice Ex.A.13, which was acknowledged by the Defendants, the Defendants have not chosen to reply. Hence, the Plaintiff has filed the suit for specific performance stating that she is always ready and willing to perform her part of the contract.
3. During pendency of the suit, 1st Defendant died on 6. 1998 and her only legal heirs - the respondents/Defendants 2 and 3 had become majors.
4. Denying execution of sale deed and alleging fraud and forgery, Defendants No.2 and 3 have filed written statement contending that the suit agreement of sale dated 30.6.1994 is void and cannot be enforced in a Court of law. According to the Defendants, their paternal grandfather Venkatapathi was the original owner of the suit property and he had executed a Will and their father – Jayaram was given life interest without any right or power of alienation. Further case of Defendants is that after death of their paternal grandfather - Venkatapathy and their father V.Jayaram, right, title and interest in the suit property stand absolutely vested in the Defendants and their mother - 1st Defendant did not have any right to enter into agreement of sale to execute any agreement on behalf of Defendants No.2 and 3. Stating that the 1st Defendant had not and could not have received any pay, much less the sum of Rs.3,20,000/-, the Defendants have taken the plea that the agreement of sale is only an attempt to knock off the property. According to Defendants, there was no necessity for sale of the suit property and the Defendants are not bound by Ex.A.1 – agreement of sale and the Defendants prayed for dismissal of the suit.
5. Defendant No.3 filed separate written statement inter alia contending that she is no way connected with sale consideration of RS.3,20,000/- paid by the Plaintiff to the 1st Defendant. Action of 1st Defendant with regard to share of 3rd Defendant does not bind her. Under Section 8(2) of the Hindu Minority & Guardianship Act, 1956, it is necessary to obtain previous permission of Court in effecting sale of immovable property of minor and 3rd Defendan
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
