An agreement to sell executed by one heir without proper authority from other heirs, particularly minors, is invalid and unenforceable under law.

Headnote:(A) Specific Relief Act, 1963 - Section 10 - Guardian and Wards Act, 1890 - Suit for specific performance - Plaintiff sought specific performance of an agreement to sell land executed by one heir without authority from other heirs, including minors - Courts found agreement invalid due to lack of power of attorney and necessary permissions for minors - The agreement was deemed opposed to public policy. (Paras 3, 9, 10)

(B) Legal Authority - The agreement to sell executed by one heir without proper authorization from other heirs, particularly minors, cannot be enforced as it lacks legal validity. (Paras 9, 10)

Facts of the case:
The plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell land, claiming that the defendant executed the agreement on behalf of all heirs. The defendant contested the suit, asserting that the agreement was fraudulent and lacked consideration. The Trial Court partly decreed the suit, awarding only the earnest money.

Findings of Court:
The agreement was invalid as it was executed without proper authority and lacked necessary permissions for the minors involved. The Trial Court's findings were upheld by the First Appellate Court.

Issues: The main issues included whether the agreement was validly executed and whether the plaintiff was entitled to specific performance.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that an agreement executed without proper authority from all heirs, especially minors, is unenforceable and cannot give rise to a cause of action for specific performance.

Result: Appeal dismissed.

JUDGMENT :

Alka Sarin, J.

CM-15472-C-2018

1. The application for making good the deficiency in affixing court fee is allowed, as prayed for.

CM-15473-C-2018

2. The application for condonation of 389 days delay in re-filing the appeal is allowed, as prayed for.

RSA-5618-2018

3. The present regular second appeal has been preferred by the plaintiff-appellant challenging the judgment and decree dated 08.07.2014 passed by the Trial Court and the judgment and decree dated 22.11.2016 passed by the First Appellate Court whereby the suit for specific performance filed by the plaintiff-appellant was partly decreed.

4. The brief facts relevant to the present lis are that the plaintiff- appellant herein filed a suit for specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 23.10.2007 regarding land situated at village Sajuma, Tehsil and District Sangrur @ Rs.6,00,000/- per killa i.e 8 kanals i.e. for a sum of Rs.23,53,125/- after adjusting a sum of Rs.50,000/- paid as earnest money. The suit was also for declaration that the sale deed no. 1847 dated 05.12.2007 allegedly executed by defendant-respondent Nos.1 to 5 in favour of defendant-respondent No. 8 regarding the suit land was wrong, illegal, null and void, benami, nonest, without right, without consideration, without proper inquiry to defraud the plaintiff-appellant and the same is not binding upon his rights qua the suit land. In the alternative it was prayed for recovery of Rs.1,50,000/- out of which Rs.50,000/- was the amount of earnest money and Rs.1,00,000/- was the amount of damages alongwith costs of the suit and also future interest @ 12% per annum on the suit amount. It was averred by the plaintiff-appellant that Naranjan Singh was the owner of the suit land and upon his death his estate, including the suit land, had been inherited by defendant-respondent Nos.1 to 4, 6 and 7 being his legal heirs. On 23.10.2007 the defendant respondent No. 1 on her behalf and on behalf of defendant-respondent Nos.2 to 4, 6 and 7 agreed to sell the suit land and executed an agreement to sell in favour of the plaintiff-appellant. The suit land was agreed to be sold @ Rs.6,00,000/- per killa and cash amount of Rs.50,000/- was received by defendant-respondent No. 1 on her behalf and on behalf of defendant respondent Nos.2 to 4, 6 and 7 in the presence of witnesses. The sale deed was agreed to be executed after receiving the balance sale consideration and after getting the mutation of inheritance of Naranjan Singh sanctioned in their favour by the defendant-respondent Nos.1 to 4, 6 and 7. It was stated that the possession of the suit land was delivered to the plaintiff-appellant by the proposed vendors on the day of execution of the agreement to sell i.e 23.10.2007. According to the plaintiff-appellant he was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract and had the remaining sale consideration and sum required for purchase of stamp etc. ready with him but the defendant respondent Nos.1 to 4 and 6 and 7 were never ready and willing to perform their part of the contract and that the defendant-respondent Nos.1 to 5 in total violation of the agreement to sell sold the suit land to defendant-respondent No. 8 vide sale deed no. 1847 dated 05.12.2007. Hence, the suit. Defendant-respondent Nos.1 to 7 filed written statement raising objections that the plaintiff-appellant had no cause of action to file the suit and he had not come to court with clean hands and had suppressed material facts. On merits it was pleaded that the defendant-respondent Nos.1 to 7 had never entered into any alleged agreement to sell dated 23.10.2007 with the plaintiff-appellant and that the alleged agreement to sell was a result of fraud, mis-representation and without consideration. Rather, an agreement to sell dated 20.10.2007 was executed in favour of defendant-respondent No. 8 and on the basis of the said agreement to sell the sale deed was executed in favour of the defendant respondent No. 8. It was further averred that defenda

Click Here to Read the rest of this document