MANIK CHAND Vs. RAMCHANDRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is by the plaintiff by special leave granted by this Court against the judgement and decree dated 9-2-1968 passed by the Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in first appeal No. 2I of 1966 dismissing the suit for specific performance. The plaintiffs 1 and 2 who were minors entered into an agreement on .30-9-1961 through their mother and guardian Smt. Phoolibai with the respondent to purchase a house situated in Thandi Sarak for a sum of Rs. 11,000/-. A sum of Rupees 1000/- was paid as earnest money and the balance was to be paid at the time of the registration of the saledeed. According to the plaintiffs/appellants, the respondent did not carry out their part of the agreement and the appellants filed the present suit for specific performance of the contract on 28-3-1962 in the Court of Additional District Judge, Gwalior. The suit -was decreed on 15-4-1966. The plaintiffs deposited Rs. 10,500/- the balance of the price on 13-7-1966. The respondent appealed to the High Court against the judgement and decree of the trial court which allowed the appeal and dismissed the suit.

(2.) The High Court agreed with the findings of the trial Court on the merits and found that it was the respondents who committed breach of contract but dismissed the suit on the ground that as the contract was entered on behalf of the minors, a decree for specific performance could not be granted to the appellants for want of mutuality.

(3.) Mr. Shiv Dayal Srivastava, learned counsel appearing for the appellants, submitted that the lower court erred in holding that the contract for purchase of property by the guardian on behalf of the minors is unenforceable due to lack of mutuality and submitted that so long as the transaction is for the benefit of the minor, the defendants cannot resist the decree for specific performance.