CHHITAR MAL Vs. JAGAN NATH PRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a suit by the plaintiff appellant for enforcement of an alleged contract of sale of property for the sum of Rs. 725 entered into between him and one Musammat Misri, mother and certificated guardian of Sanwalia. The facts are that it apparently became necessary to sell portion of the minor's property. The mother and certificated guardian would seem to have obtained an offer from the plaintiff appellant of Rs. 725 for the purchase of that property. She thereupon applied to the Judge, under the provisions of the Guardians and Wards Act of 1890, for permission to sell the property described in her application for the sum of Rs. 725. An order was passed by the Judge sanctioning the sale; but, strange to say, the name of the vendee does not appear in the Judge's order. Before many days had passed the Judge would seem to have received information that the property had been sold too cheaply, and that the defendant respondent, Jagan Nath Prasad, was willing to give Rs. 825 for it. The District. Judge caused this offer to be communicated to the plaintiff and offered the property to him at Rs. 825. He, however, refused to purchase at that price. The Judge thereupon sanctioned the sale to the respondent Jagan Nath. A sale-deed was duly executed and registered and the purchase money paid. THIS suit has now been instituted by the plaintiff appellant Chhitar Mal for specific performance of the alleged agreement between him and the minor's certificated guardian to sell to him the properly in suit for the sum of Rs. 725. Both the lower Courts have dismissed the claim.

(2.) IN appeal the argument chiefly advanced by the learned advocate for the appellant was that there was no power in the Judge to cancel his order sanctioning the sale for Rs. 725 and to accept the respondent's offer at a higher figure. We do not think it necessary to go into the question as to whether or not the District Judge had power to act as he has done. It seems to us that the question does not arise. "We think that the principle on which we should act in this case is the principle that a Court will never enforce specific performance against a minor when such enforcement is to his detriment. Here it is manifest; that, if the plaintiff appellant succeeds, the result will be the loss of at least a hundred rupees to the minor. We think that Courts in this country, as in England, will not allow a bargain made by an improvident guardian to be enforced against the interests of the minor, if it be shown to be a bargain made to the detriment of the minor. Here there can be no doubt whatever that by her bargain the mother did not obtain the full value of her son's property. Therefore for that short reason, without going into any other considerations, we think that this appeal fails and must be dismissed with costs. We order accordingly.