D ARVIND KUMAR Vs. UMI HANI BEGUM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two Letters patent Appeals are filed by the plaintiff and the subsequent purchaser respectively, questioning the decree and Judgment in C.C.C.A. 3 / 83, allowing the appeal filed by the plaintiff in O.S. No.791 / 79 on the file of the II Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.

(2.) As the subject-matter is the same and the parties are also common in both the L.P. As. they are disposed of by this common judgment. The parties in the appeals will be referred to as they are arrayed in the main L.P.A. 216 / 86.

(3.) The first respondent entered into an oral agreement on 3-2-1978 with the appellant, being minor, represented by his father as guardian, to purchase a ground-floor mulgi bearing Municipal No. 3-3-38 at Subash Road, Secunderabad as described in the plaint schedule for a sum of Rs.20,000/- and has paid an advance amount of Rs. 1,000/- on the same date through a demand draft in favour of the minor-1st respondent issued by Andhra Bank, Rashtrapati Road, Secunderabad. In fact, the first respondent's husband was running a watch repairing shop in the said premises, by name Khan Watch Company. The appellant's father has similarly entered into agreements for sale of six more mulgies in favour of four other tenants. After receipt of the advance, the appellant's father infact filed O.P.202/86 on the file of the Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad under section 8(2)(A) of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, showing the first respondent and other intending purchasers as the respondents and the said O.P. was allowed and permission was granted by an order dated 18-8-1978 accepting the plea that if the 'mulgies' are sold at market rate and the same is deposited in a Nationalised Bank, it would fetch more income to the minor than the rents fetched by the said 'mulgies'. Thereafter, the plaintiff approached the appellant's father who told her that she would get a notice from him after effecting the registration of the other four shops in favour of the respective buyers and as such, she was required to wait till her turn comes for registration. It is also the case of the first respondent plaintiff that the sale deeds in respect of the other 'mulgies' were registered by the father of the appellant on 1-2-1979 and 28-8-1979 and that the request of the first respondent to execute the sale deed in her favour was not complied with by the appellant's father and he insisted on double consideration. Therefore, she issued a telegraphic notice on 28-8-1979, for which she got a contentious reply from the father of the appellant. Therefore, she was constrained to file the suit against the appellant.