SURESH CHANDRA PRADHAN Vs. GANESH CHANDRA DE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE pltf. is the applt. in this second appeal. It arises out of a suit for specific performance of a contract for the sale of 35 decimals of laud which belonged to defts. 1 & 2. Defendants 1 & 2 are minors & the suit -contract is one entered into on their behalf by their mother as guardian. The contract was for sailing the property for a sum of Rs. 75 out of which Rs. 35 was paid as advance & the balance was to be paid later. Defendant 3 who is the sister's husband of defts. l & 2 has purchased the suit property on 3 -2 -1943 subsequent to the agreement in favour of the pltf. The genuineness of the consideration alleged to have bean paid thereunder were denied by the defts. & contested in the Cts. below. It has been found by the trial Ct. that the agreement was true & that a sum of Rs. 35 was paid as an advance under it. It was also found that the agreement was executed in order to raise money to repay a decretal debt for Rs. 60 against the minors in respect of which there was an execution pending at the time. It was further found that deft. 3 was fully aware of the agreement & took the sale deed in his favour with notice of the same. These findings of the trial Ct. were not challenged in first appeal before the learned Subordinate Judge. It is not clear from the judgments of the Cts. below whether the decree -debt for the discharge of which money was sought to be raised by the suit agreement was one binding on the minor's estate or not. The Cts. below have been assumed that the agreement was entered into by the guardian for legal necessity & the case must be dealt with on that footing.

(2.) THE argument that has been advanced on behalf of the defts. is that no specific performance can be decreed against the minors (& against the subsequent purchaser) on the basis of a contract entered into on their behalf by their guardian even though it may be for legal necessity or for the benefit of the minor. This contention has been accepted by both the Cts. below & the suit has been accordingly dismissed. Hence this second appeal.

(3.) THIS view is now almost unanimously held in all the H. Cs., and the reasons, therefor, do not require to be elaborated. The crucial question in such a case is whether a contract entered into by a (sic) on behalf of a minor is binding on the minor's estate. It is said that it would be binding if it is for necessity or benefit. It is urged by the learned Advocate for the applts that just as the sale of a property of the minor by his guardian for legal necessity is valid & binding, so also the antecedent contract to sell the property is equally binding on minor. It is stated that a contrary view would produce anomalous results & would not be in the interests of the minor himself. The question, however, turns on the powers of a minor's guardian. In Hanooman Persaud v. Mt. Babooee Munraj, 6 m. I. A. 393 : (18 w. R. 81 p. c.) which is the foundation of judicial decisions relating to the guardian's powers, their Lordships at p. 428 state as follows :