Back
2023 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 91177
MADRAS HIGH COURT
J. SUKUMAR(died) – Appellant
Versus
K.S.P.PANDIAN(DECEASED) – Respondent
SA 862 2017
A sale agreement entered into by a guardian on behalf of minor defendants without obtaining Court permission is not specifically enforceable, and the burden of proving that the sale agreement was entered into for legal necessity and for the benefit of the minors lies on the plaintiffs.
Headnote:
SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE - SALE AGREEMENT - MINORS - GUARDIAN'S AUTHORITY - LEGAL NECESSITY - BURDEN OF PROOF - INDIAN CONTRACT ACT, 1872 - HINDU LAW- A sale agreement entered into by a guardian on behalf of minor defendants without obtaining Court permission is not specifically enforceable.- The burden of proving that the sale agreement was entered into for legal necessity and for the benefit of the minors lies on the plaintiffs.- In the absence of a plea by the plaintiffs that the sale agreement was entered into for legal necessity or for the benefit of the minors, the plaintiffs are not entitled to lead any evidence or argue that the agreement was for legal necessity and for the benefit of the minors.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiffs filed a suit for specific performance of a sale agreement entered into by the first defendant on behalf of the minor defendants 4 to 7. The first defendant had executed settlement deeds granting life estate to the second defendant and vested remainder to the defendants 3 to 7 in respect of a portion of the property, and absolute estate to the defendants 3 to 6 in respect of the remaining portion of the property. The plaintiffs claimed that the suit property was mortgaged even prior to the execution of the settlement deed and that the first defendant entered into the sale agreement with the plaintiffs only to discharge the mortgage debt, and therefore, the agreement was entered into for the benefit of the minors.
Finding of the Court:
The first Appellate Court found that the sale agreement entered into by the first defendant on behalf of the minor defendants 4 to 7 was unenforceable, as he failed to get permission from the Competent Court to sell the minors' property. Therefore, the first appellate Court reversed the findings of the trial Court and allowed the appeal.
Issues: 1. Whether a sale agreement entered into by a guardian on behalf of minor defendants without obtaining Court permission is specifically enforceable?2. Whether the burden of proving that the sale agreement was entered into for legal necessity and for the benefit of the minors lies on the plaintiffs?3. Whether in the absence of a plea by the plaintiffs that the sale agreement was entered into for legal necessity or for the benefit of the minors, the plaintiffs are entitled to lead any evidence or argue that the agreement was for legal necessity and for the benefit of the minors?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. A sale agreement entered into by a guardian on behalf of minor defendants without obtaining Court permission is not specifically enforceable, as per the settled law established in Mohori Bibee Vs. Dharmodas Ghose (1903 ILR 30 Cal 539 (P.C)).2. The burden of proving that the sale agreement was entered into for legal necessity and for the benefit of the minors lies on the plaintiffs, as per the principles of law and the decision of the Apex Court in Mathai Mathai Vs. Joseph Mary and Ors. (MANU/SC/0473/2014=AIR 2014 SC 2277).
Final Decision: The Second Appeal was dismissed by confirming the judgment and decree passed by the First Appellate Court.
S.A.No.862 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 07.12.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SOUNTHAR
S.A.No.862 of 2017
and
CMP.No.21703 of 2017
1.J.Sukumar (Died)
2.J.Ganesamurthy
3.J.Srinivasan
4.J.S.Rajeswari
...Appellants
(A1-died, A4 brought on record as
legal heirs of the deceased A1 vide
Court order dated 19.04.2022 made
in CMP.No.5251/2022 in S.A.No.862/2017)
Vs.
K.S.P.Pandian (Deceased)
1.P.Gnanaselvi
2.Venkatasubramanian
3.Subbiah
4.Sundaram
5.Suresh
6.Subash
... Respondents
1/16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.No.862 of 2017
Prayer: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil
Procedure, against the judgment and decree passed in A.S.No.77 of 2010 by
the VI Additional City Civil Court, Chennai dated 31.01.2011 reversing the
judgment and decree passed in OS.No.4005 of 1996, dated 14.07.2009 by the
IV Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai.
For Appellants : Mr.S.Saravanakumar
for Mr.I.Abrar MD. Abdullah
For Respondents
: Mr.K.Ravi
Senior Counsel
for M/s.Rugan and Arya
JUDGMENT
The unsuccessful plaintiffs in the suit for specific performance
are the appellants. The suit for specific performance filed by the plaintiffs was
decreed by the trial Court and the findings of the trial Court was reversed by
the First Appellate Court. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiffs have come up
with this Second Appeal.
2. For the sake of convenience the parties are referred to in this
Second Appeal as per their ranking in the suit.
2/16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.No.862 of 2017
3. According to the plaintiffs, they were in occupation of
agreement mentioned property as a tenant. Later on plaintiffs, agreed to
purchase the said property for a sale consideration of Rs.6,00,000/- and
agreement was entered on 11.02.1985 and on the date of agreement an
advance of Rs.1,00,000/- was paid by the plaintiffs. As per the terms of
agreement the defendants agreed to treat the possession of the plaintiffs as the
one under agreement. The defendants also agreed to adjust the rental advance
of Rs.40,000/- towards the balance sale consideration. It was also agreed in the
agreement that necessary permission from the Court shall be obtained for
selling the agreement mentioned property to the plaintiffs in sofar as the share
of minor defendants 4 to 7. The time fixed for performance was 11.05.1986.
The plaintiffs issued a notice on 12.08.1985 reminding the defendants their
obligation under the agreement. The defendants issued a reply on 16.09.1985
stating that as per terms of agreement, the plaintiffs had to pay a further sum of
Rs.1,00,000/- to the defendants on 11.05.1985 and the same was not paid.
Subsequently, the plaintiffs paid further amount of Rs.1,00,000/- on
10.02.1986 and entered into another agreement incorporating the new terms
under Ex.A12. The time fixed for performance was six months from the date
of 2nd agreement entered on 10.02.1986. As the defendants failed to perform
3/16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.No.862 of 2017
their part of contract the plaintiffs issued a lawyer's notice on 31.03.1987. The
defendants filed Rent Control proceedings against the plaintiffs seeking their
eviction. In these circumstances, the plaintiffs were constrained to file a suit
seeking specific performance of the sale agreement expressing their
willingness and readiness for paying the balance sale consideration of
Rs.3,60,000/-.
4. The defendants filed their written statement and additional
written statement stating that on the date of execution of rental agreement the
defendants 3 to 7 were minors. It was further averred by the defendants that
the agreement mentioned property originally belonged to the first defendant
and he executed a settlement deed on 13.07.1977 granting life estate in favour
of the second defendant with vested
