RAMACHANDRA SARMA Vs. AYEESHA BEGUM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal arises out of a suit for specific performance. The suit property belonged to the father of the plaintiffs. He sold the suit property on 24-1-1956 to the defendant. On the same date, the defendant executed a registered deed of agreement for resale in favour of the plaintiffs' father. On 12-7-1957. the plaintiffs' father assigned the rights under the agreement of resale in his favour to the plaintiffs. To the plaintiffs' claim for specific performance, the defendant's contention was that the father of the plaintiffs had no right to assign the agreement of reconveyance, that there was no valid tender and that the suit was not maintainable, as the plaintiffs were minors. The only question of substance that was argued before this Court was that the plaintiffs could not maintain this suit as they are minors and the test of mutuality is not satisfied in this case. The plaintiffs based their contention on the decision in Mir Sarwarjan v. Fakhruddin. (1911) ILR 39 Cal 232 (PC) which was followed by a Full Bench of this Court in venkatachalam Pillia v. Sethuramarao, AIR 1933 Mad 322 (FB ). In the Privy council case in (1911) ILR 39 Cal 232 (PC) the guardian of a minor entered into an agreement with another for the purchase of certain immoveable property by the minor. The minor after attaining the majority sued for specific performance of the contract. Their Lordships laid down the law as follows-

(2.) IN Corpus Juris Secundum Volume LXXXI, the position regarding mutuality is stated thus at page 430--

(3.) THE defendant's appeal, therefore, fails and it is dismissed with the costs of the plaintiffs to be paid by the defendants. No leave.