KALLATHIL SREEDHARAN AND ANR. versus KOMATH PANDYALA PRASANNA AND ANR.

Citation: [1996] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 403 · Decided: 08-08-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, G.B. PATTANAIK · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

• 
KALLATHIL SREEDHARAN AND ANR. 
v. 
KOMATH PANDYALA PRASANNA AND ANR. 
AUGUST 8, 1996 
[K. RAMASWAMY AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.] 
Specific Relief Act, 1963 : 
S. 20-Suit for specific pe1fo11na11ce of co11tract-Discretio11 a11d juris-
diction of Court to decree the suit-Under a compromise decree in a pa1tition 
suit respondent-I and her minor son were allotted a cinema theatre belonging 
A 
B 
c 
to the family subject to payment of Ri. 1,55,000 each to the plaintiff and 
defendant-I-As the amount could not be paid, cinema theatre was sold-Ap-
pellant lend the money to respondent-I and deposited it in court before 
confinnation of sal~By a contract executed on 22. 7.1982, it was agreed that 
respondellt-1 would sell the theatre to appellant for Rs. 7,44,000-Appellant D 
filed a suit for specific pe1fo11nance and in the altemative for refund of the 
amow1t-T1ial Court held that the agreemelll of sale as regards the share of 
the minor was not valid as sanction of civil court u/s. · 8 of Hindu Mino1ity 
and Guardianship Act was not obtained, and granted decree of specific 
peifonnance with regard to half share of respondent-I-In appeal, High Cowt E 
set aside the decree and gmllted altemative relief of refund of the amount 
advanced by appellam-Held, High Court has not committed any ennr of law 
in declining to exercise the discretion in favour of the appellant and is not 
granting decree for specific pe1fo11nance-High Cowt has taken into con-
sideration inipecunious circunistances in which the contract came to be 
executed and since reJpondent-1 was in difficult circuntstances, it held the 
agreement to be not specifically enforceab/~Discretion exercised by High 
OJurt is on sound principles and does not warrant inte1ference. 
Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 : 
F 
G 
S. S-Agreement of sale of share of minor in the property-Sanction of 
civil court not obtained-ff eld, agreement is void and does not bind the 
1nziior. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 11015-16 
~~~ 
H 
403 
404 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 
A 
From the Judgment and Order dated 10.8.95 of the Kerala High 
B 
c 
Court in AS. No. 147 and 303 of 1987. 
K.K. Venugopal and R.N. Keshwani for the Appellants. 
K.M.K. Nair for the Respondents. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
Leave granted. 
These appeals by special leave arise from the judgment and order 
dated August 10, 1995 of the Kerala High Court made in AS. Nos. 147 
and 303 of 1987. The appellants were the plaintiffs. The first respondent 
and her son Sailesh were defendants in 0.S. No. 56/80 for partition 
between the co-parceners. Therein Prabha Cinema Theatre situated in 
Cannanore was allotted to them in a compromise decroe, subject to their 
D paying a sum of Rs. 1,55,000 each to the plaintiff and the second defendant 
therein within three months from the date of the compromise decree dated 
22.10.80. Since the amount could not be paid, the theatre was brought to 
sale at a court auction dated June 24, 1982 and was sold for a sum of Rs. 
5,44,000. The auction was to be confirmed on or before July 25, 1982. Since 
E 
F 
G 
she was not in a position to pay the amount, she had through her brother, 
DW-2 approached the appellant. In furtherance of the understanding, the 
appellant was to deposit Rs. 2,10,391 in the court before confirmation of 
the sale towari:ls the l/3rd of the amount deposited plus 5% 
of the 
founding fees. Accordingly, the appellant had lent that amount with a 
condition that the respondent and her son would sell the theatre to the 
appellant, the later agreeing to pay a further sum of Rs. 2 lakhs. In other 
words, he had agreed to purchase the theatre for 5,44,000 and 2 lakhs. It 
is the case of the appellant that the contract came to be executed on July 
22, 1982 and the sale was set aside on deposit of the amount advanced by 
the appellant. 
When he issued a notice to the respondent to get the sale deed 
executed in furtherance of the agreement, she pleaded that it was not 
intended to be executed; rather, it was by way of security for loan. Conse-
quently, the appellant laid the suit for specific performance. Therein the 
appellant prayed for decree for specific performance and in the alternative 
H for refund of the amount advanced by him, namely, Rs. :~10,391. The trial 
KALLATI!ILSREEDHARANv. KP.PRASANNA 
405 
Court noticing that the appellant had not had the sanction of the civil Court A 
under Section 8 of the Hindu Mi
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.