Back
2024 Supreme(Telangana) 232
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
M.G. PRIYADARSINI, J.
Revu Srisailam – Appellant
Versus
Md. Moinuddin and Ors – Respondents
Second Appeal No.162 of 2003
Decided on : 21-06-2024
For the Appellant : AADESH VARMA
For the Respondent: CH VENKAT RAMAN
IMPORTANT POINT
A natural guardian under Mohammedan law can only alienate a minor's property if it benefits the minor, which must be proven.
Headnote:
Specific Performance - Agreement of Sale - Section 100 CPC - The court interpreted the rights of a natural guardian under Mohammedan law regarding the alienation of minor's property, concluding that the plaintiff failed to prove the agreement was for the benefit of the minors, thus denying specific performance.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff sought specific performance of a sale agreement for property owned by minors, claiming the natural guardian executed the agreement. The defendants denied the agreement's validity, asserting it was not for the minors' benefit.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the plaintiff did not establish that the agreement was executed for the benefit of the minor defendants, and the natural guardian's actions were not binding on them.
Issues: Whether a natural guardian can alienate a minor's property for the minor's benefit and whether the agreement was valid.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that a natural guardian can only alienate a minor's property if it is for the benefit of the minor, which was not proven in this case.
Result: The second appeal is dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
This Second Appeal is filed by the plaintiff challenging the judgment and decree dated 21.10.2002 passed in A.S.No.461 of 2000 on the file of the learned IX Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, confirming the judgment and decree dated 30.08.2000 passed in O.S.No.115 of 1989 on the file of the learned I Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court at Hyderabad. Thus, the present Second Appeal is filed against the concurrent findings of trial Court as well as first Appellate Court.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter are referred to as they are arrayed before the trial Court.
3. The brief facts of the case, which necessitated the appellant/plaintiff to file the present appeal, are as follows:
a) The plaintiff filed O.S.No.115 of 1989 against defendant Nos.1 to 6 for specific performance of agreement of sale. The brief averments of the plaint are that the plaintiff entered into an agreement of sale with defendants in respect of suit schedule property on 16.05.1980 for consideration of Rs.9,000/- and paid Rs.3,000/- as advance. Though the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his part of contract by paying remaining consideration, the defendants were dragging the matter, as such, the plaintiff got issued legal notice on 21.09.1981 to which the defendants requested for time. On 13.08.1983 the defendants received Rs.500/- as further earnest money and as the property was offered for sale was for the benefit and welfare of the minor’s interest. On 19.11.1986 due to mediation, defendants agreed to sell the property on enhanced sale consideration of Rs.40,000/- and received Rs.1,000/- by 10.02.1987. As the defendants failed to execute sale deed, the plaintiff got issued legal notice dated 10.02.1987 to executed the sale deed in pursuance of second agreement, dated 19.01.19865 but there was no response. The defendants in all received Rs.11,900/- as part consideration despite written undertaking to withdraw the eviction petition by playing fraud. Defendants got exparte eviction orders and executed terms on 16.12.1987 and got issued legal notice dated 22.11.1987 but they replied it denying to execute sale deed blaming the defendant No.6. Hence, the suit.
b) In reply to the plaint averments, the defendant Nos.1 to 3 filed written statement, which was adopted by defendant No.4. The brief averments of the written statement filed by the defendant Nos.1 to 3 is that they denied execution of agreement of sale dated 16.05.1980 and so also second agreement dated 19.01.1986 and receipt of Rs.11,900/- as part of sale consideration. The alleged sale transaction was not meant for benefit and well being of the minors. The entire suit schedule property is absolute property of defendant Nos.1 to 5, who never entered into any contract or agreement with the plaintiff, much less under the alleged agreements. The agreements if any entered with defendant No.6 is not binding on defendant Nos.1 tio 5, who are minors as on the date of alleged agreement dated 16.05.1980. Defendant No.6 has no right or interest over the property and that he is not entitle to minors’ property though he is their father. Defendant No.6 addicted to bad vices leading a wayward life. The alleged agreement dated 16.05.1980 was brought into existence in collusion with defendant No.6. The plaintiff was the tenant of the suit schedule property paying rent of Rs.200/- per month and committed default in payment of rents. Hence, defendant Nos.1 to 5 filed R.C.No.474/1987 and obtained eviction orders and got evicted the plaintiff through process of law and since then defendant Nos.1 to 5 holding the suit schedule property in their own right. Hence, the defendants prayed to dismiss the suit.
c) Based on the pleadings of both sides, the trial Court framed the following issues:
1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the specific performance of the suit agreement of sale and for delivery of possession?
2) To What relief?
d) During the court of trial, the GPA hol
