HARIHARAN Vs. PARVATHYKUTTY AMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Plaintiff appeals. His suit is for specific performance of Ext. A1 agreement dated 31-7 1978. The property is six cents. It belonged to the first defendant and defendants 2 and 3, her minor children as coowners. Agreement was entered into by the first defendant along with Rajan Menon, her former husband and father of defendants 2 and 3 Rajan Menon was acting as guardian of the minors. Contention of the first defendant is that she was not a consenting party to Ext. A1 and her signature was obtained by the husband under vitiating circumstances. The husband is said to be a drunkard and close friend of the plaintiff. It is also alleged that the guardian is having the added obligation to the plaintiff because of frequent financial assistance in small amounts That contention was accepted by both the courts below on the evidence of the plaintiff himself. It was also found that the agreement is not valid and binding on defendants 2 and 3. The suit was, therefore, dismissed and the decision was confirmed in appeal.

(2.) The marriage between the first defendant and Rajan Menon was divorced after Ext. A1, by a decree of divorce. There was no necessity for the minors to sell their property. Ext. A1 was not the result of any direct dealing between the plaintiff and the first defendant. First defendant was not even present when the transaction was entered into, she did not receive any amount from the plaintiff. He has not seen the first defendant signing Ext. A1. It was evidently a transaction between the plaintiff and Rajan Menon. Therefore, plaintiff even doubted the genuineness of the signature of the first defendant in Ext. A1. He even went to the extent of verifying the genuineness of the signature of the first defendant in Ext. A1 by comparing it with her admitted signature. Ext. A1 was brought about under abnormal, extra ordinary and suspicious circumstances showing that its execution was not the result of free will or consent given by the first defendant. These are the factual findings of the Trial Court and the appellate court. In second appeal, there is no scope, for interference with those findings.

(3.) It is true that Rajan Menon was the natural guardian of minor defendants 2 and 3. But Ext. A1 was entered into after the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act came into force. S.8 thereof specifically provides that the natural guardian is not entitled to deal with the property of the minor, even in cases where the requisite conditions exist, without the prior permission of the competent court. Permission is not an empty formality which could be given by the court for the mere asking. Such a safeguard is intended to protect the interest of minors against the vagaries of natural guardians. Any dealing, without such permission, could convert the transaction as one without authority and as such, void in the eye of law. A natural guardian, who is dealing with the properties of a minor without such permission from a competent court, could be equated to the position of importer or intermeddler who is having no authority. Even the permission that has to be granted by the court is made conditional on the satisfaction of the existence of certain circumstances. These circumstances are necessity and evident advantage of the minor. The acts of the guardian must be necessary or reasonable and proper for the benefit of the minor or for realisation, protection or benefit of the minor's estate. Apart from Ext. A1 wanting prior sanction of court none of the other conditions also exist in this case Ext. A1 indicates that the transaction was entered into solely for the benefit of the plaintiff. No necessity, so far as the minors are concerned, is even mentioned therein.