LexMANIK CHAND AND ANR. versus RAMACHANDRA SON OF CHAWRIRAJ
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A. B c D E ' H MANIK CHAND AND ANR. v. RAMACHANDRA SON OF CHAWRIRAJ May 8, 1980 [S. MURTAZA FAZAL ALI ANO P. S. KAILASAM, JJ.] 1-~ Specific performance-Enforceability of a contract for purchase of property by a guardian for the benefit_ of the 1ninor--Contract Act, Section I I-Section 8 of the Hindu .Winority Act read with Section 55(5)(h) of Transfer of Pro- perty Act. The appellants-plaintiffs who were minors entered into an agreement on 30-9-1961, through their mother and guardian with the respondent to purchase a house for a sum of Rs. 11000/-. A sum of Rs. 1000/- was paid as earnest 1noney and the balance was to be paid at thei time· of the registration of thC sale deed. Since the respondent did not carry out his part of the agreement, the appellants filed a suit for specific perlormance 1 ofi the contract on 28-3-1962· in the Cou11 of Additional District Judge, Gwhlior. The suit was decreed on 15-4-1966. The appellants deposited J1s. 10,500/- the balance of the price on 13-7-1966. The respondent appealed -,o the High Court against the judgment and decree of the trial court which 'J.llowed the appeal and dismissed the suit: holding that as the contract was entered into on behalf of the minors a decree for specific performance could not be granted ro( want of mutuality. AIJowing the appeal by special leave, the Court HELD : I. The contract entered into by the guardian on behaJf of the minors is enforceable. [1108 EJ 2. A minor has no legal con1petence to enter into a contract or authorise someone else on his behalf to enter into a: contract. But under the Hindu Law, the natural guardian is empowered to enter into a contract on behalf of the minors and the contract would be binding and enforceable if the contract is for the benefit of the minor. [1106 Bl Krishnaswami v. Sundarappayya, IL~ 18 Mad., 415; relferr'edl to. Mir Sarwarjan v. Fakhruddin Mohd. Chowdhary, JLR 39 Cal. I (PO); Srikakulam Subrahmanyam v. Kurra Subba Rao, 1 Il..R 75 Mad. 115; HanUlJO.. 1nanPrasaud Pandey v. Mussamat Nabooee Munraj Koonwaree (1856) 6 Moor I.A. 393; Mo/10ri Bibee v. Dhuramodas Ghose, LR. 301 IA 114, Srik(l- kulam Subrahmanyam v. Ku"a Subba Rao, ILR 1949 Mad. 143; Suryaprakasam v. Ganga Raju, A.I.R. 1956 Andb. 33; explained. 3. After the passing of the Hindu Minority i\ct, 19'56, the 1 guardian of a llindu -minor ha') power to do all acts which are necessary or reasonable and proper for the benefit of the minor's estates. The- guardian is entitled to act so as to bind the minor if it is necessary or reasonable and proper for thei behefit of the minor. 'fhe power thus conferred by the Act is in no way restricted than that wa.s recognised under the Hindu Law. Here,· it is quite strange that the respondent should plead that the transaction is not for the benefit of the (1104) • . .. ,.. / • • MANIK CHAND v. RAMCHANDRA (Kailasam, !.) 1105 nliner when the minor is convinced it is in his benifit and that it is worth A pursuing the litigation upto Supreme Court. [1107 G·H, 1108 A-BJ 4. The guardian by the contract for purchase of property does not bind the minor by bis personal covenant. As it is within tho· competence of the guar~ dian, the contract is entered into effectively on behalf of the minor ;;nd tbe1 liability to pay· the money is the· liability of the minor under the Transfer of Property Act. [1108 D~EJ · B CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Ovil Appeal No. 1548 of .. 1970. Appeal by Special Leav!:' from Judgment and Decree dated 9-2-1968 of the M.P. High Court in First Appeal No. 21 of 1976. Shiv Dayal Srivastava and T. C. Sharma for the Appellant. Y. S. Chitale, and Rameshwar Nath for Respopdent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by, J(AILASAM. J. This appeal is by the plaintiffs by special leave granted by this Court against the judgment and decree dated 9-4-1968 pasi;ed by the Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in first appeal No. 21 of 1966 dismissing the suit for specific pedormance. The plaintiffs l and 2 who were minors entered. into an agreement on 30-9-1961 through their mother and guardian Smt. Pboolibai with the respondent to purchase a house situated in Thandi Sllrak for a sum of Rs. 11,000/-. A sum of Rs. 1000/- was paid as earnest money and the balance was to be paid at the time of the registration. of the sale-deed. According to the plaintiffs/appellants, the respondent .did not carry outi his part
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.