LALTA PRASAD Vs. RAVI SHANKER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) TARUN Agarwala, J. List of hearing cases has been revised. No one appears for plaintiff respondent. Heard Sri Triveni Shanker, the learned Counsel for defendant appellants.

(2.) THE plaintiff respondent instituted a suit for specific performance. It is alleged that the defendants had contracted to sell a portion of the land for a consideration of Rs. 10,687. 50 P. and that the defendants had received a sum of Rs. 1,000/- as earnest money. This agreement was duly registered. It was contended that the defendants were required to seek permission under the provisions of THE Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 and, upon receiving the permission, the defendants were required to execute the sale-deed. It was alleged that the plaintiff-respondent from time to time had enquired from the defendants as to whether the permission was received and that the defendants intimated the plaintiff that as and when the permission was granted and the matter was sorted out with the authorities, the sale-deed would be executed. THE plaintiff further contended that he was always ready and willing to get the sale-deed executed and that the defendants only dilly dallied the matter for one reason or the other. Eventually, the plaintiff gave a notice on 26-12-1981 and thereafter filed the suit.

(3.) AGGRIEVED by the aforesaid decree passed by the trial Court, the defendants filed an appeal which was also dismissed. The lower appellate Court affirmed the decision of the trial Court and further concluded that in view of sub-clause (4) of Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act, the principles of mutuality was no longer applicable and that a contract for sale against a minor could be enforced in a Court of law. The defendants, being aggrieved by the aforesaid decisions, filed the present second appeal which was admitted on the following substantial question of law: "whether the plaintiff purchaser being a minor at the time of agreement, there was no mutuality and therefore, the suit for specific performance was not maintainable".