JUDGMENT :- This is an appeal by Bhupal, Bishambhar and Kishan Lal defendants from the decree of the learned Additional District Judge, allowing the appeal of Mam Chand and dismissing the appeal of Sukhey.

2. The facts giving rise to this appeal may briefly be stated as follows. On 20th March, 1967, Mahabir as guardian of Mam Chand entered into an agreement with Sukhey defendant to purchase agricultural land for a sum of Rs. 8,000/- and paid a sum of Rs. 5,500/- in cash as earnest money. It was agreed that the sale deed would be got registered within three years and the balance of the sale consideration would be paid at the time of the registration of the document. Sukhey, however, did not execute the sale deed; instead he executed a sale deed on 7th September, 1968, in respect of a portion of that land in favour of the defendants Nos. 2 to 4 who purchased the said land with knowledge and notice of the agreement of sale which Sukhey had entered into with Mam Chand. The plaintiff called upon the defendants to execute the sale deed in pursuance of the aforesaid agreement but they failed to do so hence the plaintiff filed the suit for specific performance of the agreement of sale and in the alternative for the refund by Sukhey defendant alone of the earnest money of Rs. 5,500/- with pendente lite and future interest. The plaintiff had also alleged that though the sale deed was to be executed within three years possession of the land was delivered to him by Sukhey after entering into the agreement for sale.

3. The suit was contested by the defendants on a number of grounds. Sukhey had alleged that he had asked the plaintiff to receive back the sum of Rs. 5,500/- and return the agreement of sale. During the trial he, however, advanced the plea that the sum of Rs. 5,500/- was given to him as loan which was to be satisfied out of the yield of the land in three years' time. However, it was also pleaded that the land remained in the cultivation of Sukhey. The defendants Nos. 2 to 4 contended that they were bona fide purchasers for value and without notice of the agreement of sale.

4. The Trial Court dismissed the suit for specific performance of the agreement but decreed the suit for recovery of Rs. 5,500/-against Sukhey defendant No. 1. The suit was dismissed against defendants Nos. 2 to 4. Against that decision Mam Chand plaintiff and Sukhey defendant No. 1 preferred separate appeals. The Appellate Court below allowed the appeal of the plaintiff Mam Chand and decreed the suit for specific performance of the contract. The appeal filed by Sukhey was dismissed. Aggrieved the defendants Nos. 2 to 4 have now come to this Court in second appeal.

5. Both the courts have recorded a concurrent finding of fact that the possession of the agricultural land in question was not delivered to the plaintiff at the time of the agreement of sale. The trial court, however, found that the defendants Nos. 2 to 4 were bona fide purchasers and the agreement of sale was void on account of Mam Chand being a minor. The appellate court below reversed that finding holding that the defendants Nos. 2 to 4 were not the bona fide purchasers and the agreement of sale was not void. The finding recorded by the appellate court below that the defendants Nos. 2 to 4 were not bona fide purchasers for value and had notice of the agreement of sale executed by Sukhey in favour of the plaintiff is a finding of fact. It is based on appreciation of evidence and there is no reason to interfere with the same. The learned counsel for the appellants, however, urged that the agreement of sale having been entered with a minor through his guardian was void, hence unenforceable. The learned counsel for the appellants argued that the transaction of purchase by a minor should fall as it suffers from want of mutuality inasmuch as the plaintiff at the time of the agreement was a minor and the agreement could not have been enforced against him by the defendant Sukhey. In support of his contentio

Click Here to Read the rest of this document