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 (!) .