THAN SINGH Vs. BARELAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been filed by the plaintiff-appellants against the judgment passed by the Addl. District Judge, Vidisha, in Original Suit No. 2-A of 1968 wherein the plaintiff-appellants' suit was dismissed. The plaintiff-appellants filed the present suit for specific performance of contract for sale in respect of immovable property. The contract initially was executed by Prembai (since deceased) sister of respondent No. 1 and this contract was in favour of appellant no. 1 minor through next friend his lather appellant No. 2. The properties included agricultural land and a house for Rs. 11,000/-, out of which Rs. 2,000/were paid in advance and Rs. 9,000/- were to be paid at the time of the sale. This contract was executed in writing and was registered on 25th October 1966. After the suit was filed the respondent defendants contested the suit on the ground that there was no privity of contract between him and the minor, but this plea raised by the defendant-respondent was interpreted by the learned trial Court as want of mutuality between the contracting parties as one of the contracting party was minor and on that ground applying Section 22 of the Sepcific Relief Act dismissed the suit on preliminary question and hence this appeal.

(2.) TWO issues were framed by the learned trial Court:- (1) Whether there was privity of contract between the deceased Prembai and the minor plaintiff and if, so, is the plaintiff entitled to file the present suit ? (2) Has the plaintiff-guardian of the minor obtained permission from the district Judge for acquiring this property for the benefit of the minor ? the learned trial Court found both the issues against the plaintiff-appellants and dismissed the suit.

(3.) AS regards the second issue about obtaining permission from the District Court both the sides frankly conceded before us that this view taken by the learned courts below is absolutely unjustified. There is no question of obtaining permission of the District Court for the father guardian of minor plaintiff to acquire property for the benefit of the minor. Apparently, there is no such law where such permission was necessary when a father-guardian acquires property for the benefit of his minor son. Consequently, the decision on this issue of the learned courts below cannot be maintained.