Back
DEVADOSS
Kasivasi Chidambara Swamigal – Appellant
Versus
Ramakrishna Reddiar – Respondent
This case concerns whether a contract entered into by a guardian on behalf of a minor for the sale of the minor's property can be specifically enforced by the court. The plaintiff had agreed to buy a portion of the minor's property, but the property was later sold to a third party. The initial court ruling favored the plaintiff, but this was later reversed by a subordinate court. The higher court examined whether the guardian's contract was in the best interest of the minor and whether it was valid and free from invalidating circumstances. The court concluded that such a contract could be enforced if it was in the minor's best interest and no valid grounds existed to impeach it. The court emphasized that the existence of a better offer should not prevent enforcement of a valid contract made in good faith on behalf of a minor. Ultimately, the court allowed the appeal, decreed in favor of the plaintiff, and ordered the plaintiff to pay the purchase price into court within a specified period, failing which the suit would be dismissed.
Devadoss, J.
1. The main question argued in this second appeal is whether the contract entered into by the guardian of a minor for the sale of immoveable property belonging to the minor could be specifically enforced. The plaintiff contracted to buy a portion of the minors property for Rs. 1,150. Two months after, the property was sold for Rs. 1,500 to the 3rd defendant. The plaintiff has brought the suit for the purpose of enforcing specific performance of the contract in his favour and the 3rd defendant resists the suit. The District Munsif gave a decree in favour of the plaintiff and the Subordinate Judge has reversed the judgment and has dismissed the plaintiffs suit.
2. The question in this case is whether the contract by the guardian on behalf of the minor could be specifically enforced. Mr. Patanjali Sastri who appears for the appellant relies upon the case reported in Ramajogayya v. Jagannadhan (1918) 36 MLJ 29 : ILR 42 M 185 (FB). In that case the opinion of the majority was that no decree should be passed against the minors estate on a contract entered into on his behalf by the guardian under which covenant no charge is created on the estate except in cases in which
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
