MAROTI ASHROBA SODNER Vs. BALAPRASAD GOVARDHANDAS AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE only question of law urged in this appeal on behalf of the plaintiff who is appellant before me is as to whether he should not be entitled to the equitable relief as per the provisions of section 65 of the Indian Contract Act at least regarding the recovery of the earnest amount of Rs. 5000 paid by him for the purchase of the suit lands.

(2.) THE facts of the case are as follows : - -

(3.) THE defence of the defendants Nos. 1, 2 and 3 was that defendants Nos. I and 2 were minors at the time of the alleged agreement. Hiralal was not Karta of the joint family at the time of the alleged agreement at all, since the joint family properties were already partitioned long before the year 1962 in which partition the suit property had been given to the share of the minor defendants 1 and 2. They contended that from the date of the said partition the suit property was separate property of defendants I and 2 and hence Hiralal who was only the grandfather of defendants Nos. 1 and 2 had no power to deal with the said property. The contention, therefore, was that the agreement dated 12th June 1972 was even void ab initio and hence specific performance of the same could not be asked for. It was further contended that the plaintiff was not entitled even to alternative relief of compensation or refund of the purchase money.