AYYAPPAN EZHUTHACHAN Vs. ANTONY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Defendants 10 to 13, 15 to 19 and additional defendant No 20, the legal representative of the 14th defendant, are the appellants. The plaintiff instituted the suit for specific performance of Ex. P 3, an agreement to sell the property of minors, executed by the first defendant, father and natural guardian of the minors, on August 4, 1966 in favour of the plaintiff, and for recovery of possession. The first defendant did not turn up for executing the sale deed as agreed to. Thereupon the plaintiff sent a notice on August 5, 1966 to the first defendant; but in the meanwhile, a sale deed Ex. D1 was executed by the 9th defendant, the mother, who is not the natural or legal guardian of the minors, in respect of the suit property in favour of defendants 10 to 19.

(2.) The suit was contested by defendants 10 to 19 and they mainly contended that they are not aware of Ex. P3 agreement, that it is not true that the first defendant executed such an agreement on 4 8 1966, that this agreement was brought into existence after defendants 10 to 19 obtained the sale deed in question and that the 9th defendant is their natural guardian. It was also contended that these defendants are bona fide purchasers.

(3.) The learned Munsiff found that Ex P3 is genuine and valid and was executed by the 1st defendant in favour of the plaintiff, that the proposed sale under Ex P3 is more beneficial to the minors, that the contesting defendants cannot be considered to be bona fide purchasers for value without notice of Ex. P3, that Ex D1 sale deed executed by the mother is void and that the plaintiff is entitled to a decree for specific performance and recover possession of the suit property with mesne profits at the rate of Rs. 10/- per mensem from defendants 10 onwards.