SUBBA REDDY Vs. GURUVA REDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiff-respondent to recover possession of a small plot of land on payment of a sum of Rs. 100 to the defendant (appellant) by way of redemption of an othi (usufructuary mortgage) held by him. The plaintiff's claim to the suit land is based upon the registered sale deed Ex. A. His claim was resisted by defendant 1 on several grounds which necessitated an elaborate trial and a good deal of arguments before the lower Courts. In this second appeal, they have filtered down to two main contentions which alone have been strenuously argued before me by the learned advocate for the appellant.. They are: (1) that the sale under Ex. A is invalid as it was executed in favour of a minor, and (2) that this sale deed is invalid, as it was not validly presented for registration before the Sub-Registrar.

(2.) Before proceeding to discuss the question of law a brief reference to the contents of Ex. A and some relevant facts would be sufficient. The plaintiff was a minor of about 16 years of age at the time of the execution of Ex. A. This sale deed was executed in his favour without being described as a minor represented by any guardian. As regards the particulars of the amount received by the vendors in respect of the sale, the document recites thus: The amount settled with you in respect of your discharging the debt duo on the mortgage executed already on 23 April 1912, to Meyyappatti Sara Subba Reddi by No. (1) out of us in respect of the undermentioned property is Rs. 100; the amount received by us as advance after settling the sale in the month of Ani last is Rs 55; the amount received by us in cash this day in the presence of the Sub- Registrar of Kalliudi is Rs. 345-total Rs. 500 for the three items. We have this day sold to you the undermentioned property for the aforesaid sum. You shall henceforth enjoy the said property from generation to generation with absolute rights.

(3.) It is in evidence that the plaintiff was an orphan having no agnatic male relations and his affairs were managed by his maternal uncle and father-in-law Nagu Raddi (P.W. 1). It was P.W. 1. who first entered into an oral agreement for sale in respect of the suit land with defendants 2 and 3-settled the terms of the sale and also paid an advance of Rs. 55. As found by the learned Judge, there is no doubt that the prior oral agreement for sale was entered into not by the plaintiff but by his maternal uncle and guardian P.W. 1 on his behalf. A portion of the sale amount, namely Rs. 55 was also paid even before the execution of the sale deed. Out of the balance, a sum of Rs. 345 was understood to be paid in the presence of the Sub- Registrar at the time of the registration of the deed as admitted by P.W. 1. This sum, however, treated as having been paid at the time of the execution of the sale deed, as would appear from the recitals therein, adverted to above. The remaining sum of Rs. 100 which was to be paid in discharge of defendant 1's mortgage was also treated as another item of consideration that passed to the vendors. Thus, according to the recital in Ex. A, there was no contractual obligation outstanding in favour of the vendors, on the performance of which alone the title to the property should pass to the plaintiff. There is also the further fact borne out by the evidence that the sum of Rs. 345 was even tendered before the Sub-Registrar for payment, but the vendors declined to receive it: (vide Exs. B and C). This tender and the improper refusal tantamount to the performance of the obligation to pay the consideration by the plaintiff, even before the registration of the sale deed. Otherwise, it would be allowing one to take advantage of one's wrong to prejudice the rights of another.