RADHASHYAM KAMILA Vs. KIRAN BALA DASI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by the defendant against the judgment and decree of affirmance granting specific performance of a contract of purchase in favour of two minors entered into through their guardian.

(2.) The admitted facts are that the plaintiffs are heirs of one Kudiram Das who died on July 1, 1961. To meet the expenses of his Sradh, the plaintiffs sold the suit property to the defendant by a deed executed on July 9, 1961 on receipt of Rs.1,699/- as consideration. The deed was registered on July 11, 1961, on which day the defendant agreed by another deed to reconvey in favour of the plaintiffs the property on receipt of the said amount of Rs.1,699/- within July, 1965. The defendant was thereafter repeatedly asked to convey the property to the plaintiff but the defendant failed and neglected to reconvey the property in breach of the contract although the plaintiffs were always ready and willing to perform their part of the contract. The plaintiffs in the circumstances instituted the suit on April 9, 1963, praying for decree for specific performance of the said contract. It may be mentioned that the plaintiffs Nos.4 and 5, minor daughters of late Kudiram Das were represented by their guardian mother in the said sale and the contract was executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiffs including the said minors represented by their guardian mother as aforesaid. The defence in so far as it is material in this appeal, was that the plaintiffs were not entitled to enforce performance of the contract as some of the plaintiffs, being parties to the agreement, were minors. The contract for purchase, it was contended, was not enforceable in law by the minors as there was no mutuality in such contract. Further, the contract was not warranted by Section 8(1) of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956.

(3.) The suit was tried on evidence before the learned Munsif, who on a consideration of the judicial decisions, held that the doctrine of mutuality of contract has since lost its importance as such contracts are enforceable if it is one within the competence of the guardian and is for the benefit of the minor. The learned Munsif also found that property admittedly worth about Rs.3,500/- was sold to the defendant to meet an emergency at a low price. The contract for getting back the property was for the benefit of the minor and there was no evidence that the purchase of the property would bind the estate of the minors. The court further found that the contract under consideration is authorized by Section 8(1) of the Hindu Guardians and Wards Act, 1956. On merits the court also found that the plaintiffs were entitled to the specific performance of contract as prayed for. The suit was accordingly decreed.