The court emphasized the legal principles related to the alienation of shares in joint property and the requirement of permission for alienating the share of a minor child.

Rameshwar Singh Malik, J.

Instant regular second appeal, at the hands of unsuccessful defendant No.3, is directed against the concurrent findings of facts recorded by both the learned courts below, whereby suit for possession by way of specific performance of the agreement to sell filed by the plaintiffs-respondents, was partly decreed by the learned trial court and two appeals filed by both the parties were dismissed together, vide common impugned judgment and decree passed by the learned first appellate court.

2. Brief facts of the case, as recorded by the learned first appellate court in para 2 of its impugned judgment, are that defendant No.1 Nidhi and on behalf of her minor daughter Shreya i.e. defendant No.2 entered into an agreement to sell with the plaintiffs of the land measuring 17 kanals 3 marlas being share out of total land measuring 34 kanals 6 marlas comprised in khewat No. 332, khatoni No.516, rect. No.30, khasra No.6 (8-0), 7 (8-0), 14 (8-0), 15(8-0), 16 (2-6), total kitas-5 situated at village Dera, Tehsil Thanesar, District Kurukshetra as per jamabandi for the year 1996-97 on 15.3.2003 for a sale consideration of Rs. 20,51,000/- and if the possession was to be delivered on the western side, otherwise, the sale consideration was Rs. 25,00,000/-. Defendant No.1 received a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- as earnest money and agreed to execute the sale deed of her share on or before 27.6.2003. Defendant No.1 undertook to get the permission to sell the share of defendant No.2 in favour of the plaintiffs through the court of law and to get the sale deed of the same executed in favour of plaintiffs by 15.12.2003. Defendant No.1 for herself and on behalf of defendant No.2 also agreed to comply with all the conditions of the agreement to sell dated 15.3.2003.

3. It was further alleged that a petition under Section 6, 7 & 25 of the Guardian and Wards Act, 1890 read with section 13 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 (‘the Act’ for short), was filed by defendant No.3 against defendant No.1 and in a suit bearing No.71/2003 for declaration and joint possession filed by defendant No.1 against defendant No.3, a compromise was effected between defendants No.1 and 3 to the effect that the share of defendant No.1, which was the subject matter of agreement to sell dated 15.3.2003, fell to the share of defendant No.3 and both defendants No.1 and 3 were liable to execute the sale deed of 8 kanals 12 marlas land i.e. half share of land measuring 17 kanals 3 marlas in favour of plaintiffs and defendant No.1 was liable to execute the sale deed of the remaining 8 kanals 11/12 marlas land of the share of defendant No.2 Shreya in favour of plaintiffs after getting permission from the competent court of law.

4. On 27.6.2003 and 15.12.2003, the sale deed could not be executed as there was stay order from the court. Defendant No.1 undertook to execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiffs as and when the stay was vacated. Defendant No.1 had not informed the plaintiffs whether she had taken the permission from the competent court of law or not, to execute the sale deed qua her minor daughter in favour of plaintiffs. The plaintiffs requested the defendants to execute the sale deeds in favour of the plaintiffs in terms of agreement dated 15.3.2003 and a legal notice dated 6.7.2005 was also served upon the defendants. Defendant No.3 refused to receive the registered notice. In spite of the legal notice, the defendants did not execute and register the sale deed in favour of the plaintiffs.

5. Having been put to notice, defendants No. 1 and 2 filed their joint written statement. They did not contest the suit of the plaintiff. Defendant No.1 stated that she was ready to execute the sale deed qua the share of her minor daughter-defendant No.2 and as she had entered into a compromise qua her own share with defendant No.3-her mother-in-law, it was defendant No.3 who was bound to execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiffs.

6. Defe