MEDAVARAPU NARASAYYA Vs. VADLAMUDI SOMAYYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Defendant 2 is the appellant. Defendant 1 was a minor. On his behalf his guardian executed a contract of sale of the suit lands in favour of the plaintiff on 19 May 1923. The appellant (defendant 2) obtained a sale-deed of the same lands from defendant 1 on 13 July 1925. The suit out of which this second appeal arises was instituted by the plaintiff for the special performance of the contract of sale executed in his favour by the guardian of the minor, defendant 1, on his behalf. Defendant 2 contended that he was a bona fide purchaser of the suit lands for proper consideration, without notice of the contract of sale in favour of the plaintiff and that the contract in plaintiff's favour is not binding on him.

(2.) Both the Courts found that the contract in plaintiff's favour executed by defendant 1's guardian was supported by proper consideration and was for purposes binding on the minor. The lower Courts also found that the appellant had notice of the contract of sale in favour of the plaintiff and that he was not a bona fide purchaser for proper consideration. On these findings the plaintiff was given a decree for specific performance of the contract in his favour. In support of the decree the learned Subordinate Judge relied on the decision in Chidambaram Swamigal V/s. Ramakrishna Reddiar AIR 1924 Mad 863 in which it was held by Devadoss, J., that under the Hindu law it is competent to the guardian of a minor to enter into a valid contract for the sale of his immovable property for the purpose of discharging the debts of the minor's father for which the property in the minor's hands would be liable and that such a contract of sale can be enforced against the subsequent purchaser of property with notice, even though the latter has brought it for a higher price than that stipulated under the prior contract.

(3.) Subsequent to the disposal of the appeal by the Subordinate Judge, the decision in Chidambaram Swamigal V/s. Ramakrishna Reddiar AIR 1924 Mad 86 was reversed by Wallace and Thiruvenkatachariar, JJ., in a Letters Patent appeal preferred against that decision: see Ramakrishna Reddiar V/s. Chidmabara, Swamigal AIR 1928 Mad 407. The learned Judges held that an agreement of sale of immovable property of a. Hindu minor entered into on his behalf by his natural guardian, assuming the same to have been entered into for necessity, is not binding on the minor and enforceable specifically against him or a subsequent transferee of the properties from the guardian who took with notice of the agreement. The appellant relying on this decision argues that the second appeal shall be allowed and that the plaintiff's suit should be dismissed.