KALIVARAPU KAMAYYA Vs. ADAPAKA APPALANAIDU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Plaintiff Is the appellant in this second appeal. This appeal raises a question of law, viz. whether an agreement of sale of joint family properties by the father for discharge of his antecedent debts can be specifically enforced against the minors, even though legal necessity and benefit to the minors has not been established,

(2.) A few facts, which are necessary to appreciate his position are mentioned here under. The first defendant is the father of defendants 2 and 3. who are minors and who were represented by a court-guardian in the suit The first defendant for himseff and as guardian of defendants 2 and 3, 6X2 uted an agreement of sale, Ex.A-1 on 3-10-1964 agreeing to sell four acres of joint family land to the plaintiff at a price of. Rs. 1,600/- peracre. Under the agreement che first defendant received Rs. 750/- as advance at the time of execution of the agreement, on the next day the first defendant received another sum of Rs. 250/- which has also been endorsed on the agreement marked as Ex.A-2. The balance was agreed to be utilised for the discharge of a mortgate debt due to the wife of the plaintiff in a sum of about Rs. 1,000/- and Rs. 1,500/-to be paid towards the mortgage debt due to the Land Mortgaed Bank of Palakonda. The rest of the amount was agreed to be paid by 2-2-65, which was fixed as due date for the execution of the sale deed. The mortgage deed in favour of the wife of the plaintiff was marked as Ex.A-3 dated 26-2-1964, which was executed for the discharge of two earlier promissory note debts marked as Exs. A-4 and A-5 dated 5-11-1963 and 23-11 -1963 respectively for Rs.300/- each.

(3.) On 30-1-1965 the plaintiff issued the notice Ex. A-8 to the defendant intimating him that he was ready with the sale consideration and asking for the execution of the sale deed. The first defendant received the said notice and sent a reply Ex. A-10 on 23-2-65. In that reply it was stated by him that the said agreement of sale was executed at the pressure of the plaintiff and the plaintiff has agreed to receive Rs. 1,000/- taken as advance with interest and cancel the agreement of sale. Plaintiff applied to the Land Mortgage Bank about the exact amount due by the defendant to the Bank He was Informed by the Bank that the amount due was Rs.3.200/- and not Rs. 1,500/-. The letter of the Bank dated 29-4-1965 is marked as Ex. A-6 on 24-5-S965. The plaintiff again issued a notice Ex. A-11 to the defendants asking them to execute the sale deed. The first defendant again sent a reply Ex. A-12 on 15-7-65 reiterating his prior allegations contained in his first reply Ex.A-10. As the first defendant failed to execute a sale deed and put the plaintiff in possession of the scheduled lands, the plaintiff filed the suit for a specific performance of the agreement of sale and for possession.