BHATTIPROLE HANUMANTHA RAO Vs. KODRAKOTA SITHARAMAYYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises out of a suit by the appellant to set aside a number of sale deeds executed by him during his minority and to recover the properties sold together with mesne profits. The defendants 1, 2, 4 and 5 were the purchasers under different sale deeds, all of which have been set aside by the trial Court. But the decree for possession has been made conditional on the appellant refunding to the several purchasers the amounts of the consideration received from them. The first defendant died after the institution of the suit and his legal representatives are defendants 10 and 11. The main object of the appeal is to get rid of the condition imposed on the appellant to repay the purchase moneys.

(2.) The Subordinate Judge has found that the appellant was a minor when he executed the several deeds of sale, that he did not make any misrepresentation as to his age. He has not found that any of the purchasers except the fourth defendant had knowledge that the appellant was a minor when the sales were made. As regards the fourth defendant, however, he came to the conclusion that he must have known of the appellant's minority at the time of the sale in his favour. These findings of fact have not been challenged in appeal.

(3.) The learned Judge has held that the appellant was not estopped from pleading that the sales were void, a point concluded by authority and very properly not questioned before us. It was however urged on behalf of the appellant that the learned Judge was in error in imposing the condition referred to above, as neither Section 65 of the Indian Contract Act nor Section 41 of the Specific Relief Act justifies it. It is unnecessary for us, in this appeal to consider the scope of Section 65 of the Contract Act, as the first respondent's advocate has not chosen to support the judgment by reference to that section but took his stand on Section 41 of the Specific Relief Act, which according to him is sufficient to justify the conclusion of the trial Court. This argument has found favour with the Subordinate Judge, and we also are of opinion that it is sound.