Punjab-Haryana High Court
(O&M) Anil Kumar Mehta And Anr vs Sukhwinder Singh And Anr on 15 April, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:051177
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
****
RSA-2631-1989 (O&M)
Reserved on : 13.03.2024
Pronounced on: 15.04.2024
2024:PHHC: 051177
ANIL KUMAR MEHTA THROUGH HIS LRS AND ANOTHER
. . . . APPELLANTS
Vs.
SUKHWINDER SINGH AND ANOTHER
. . . . RESPONDENTS
****
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA
****
Argued By:- Mr. Manmohan Saroop, Advocate with
Mr. Dalel Singh, Advocate,
for the appellants.
Mr. Vishal Gupta, Advocate,
for the respondents.
****
DEEPAK GUPTA, J.
Civil Suit N: T-169 of 1983/1984 filed by the plaintiffs-Anil
Kumar Mehta and Parwin Kumar (appellants herein), seeking decree for
specific performance of agreement, was decreed in their favour by the Court
of Ld. Senior Sub Judge, Rupnagar on 20.09.1986. However, in the appeal
(CA N: T-239/1986/1989) filed by contesting defendant - Sukhwinder Singh
(respondent No.1 herein), the judgment and decree of the trial Court was set
aside by Appellate Court of Ld. Additional District Judge, Ropar. Accepting
the appeal, the suit was dismissed on 19.09.1989. It is against the said
judgment and decree dated 19.09.1989 of the First Appellate Court that the
present Regular Second Appeal has been filed.
2. In order to avoid confusion, parties shall be referred to as per
their status before the trial Court.
1 of 18
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:051177
RSA-2631-1989 2024:PHHC: 051177
Admitted Facts:
3. Karnail Singh and Jarnail Singh sons of Bachan Singh, to the
extent of 2/3rd share; defendant No.1 Sukhwinder Singh along with his mother
Ranjit Kaur, sister-Baljit Kaur and brother Kuldeep Singh to the extent of
remaining 1/3rd equal share, were the co-owners in possession of the land
measuring 1 bigha 12 biswas comprised in Khasra No.4628, situated in the
area of Village Morinda, Tehsil and District Rupnagar. The share of defendant
No.1-Sukhwinder Singh, who was minor at the relevant time, was 1/12th
share. All these co-sharers entered into an agreement to sell the entire land
measuring 1 bigha 12 biswas in favour of plaintiffs-Anil Kumar Mehta and
Parwin Kumar vide an agreement dated 05.05.1981 at the rate of `700/- per
biswa and received an amount of `5000/- as earnest money. The said
agreement, on behalf of minor defendant-Sukhwinder Singh was executed by
her mother/guardian Smt. Ranjit Kaur. In the agreement, it was stipulated that
sale deed in respect of minor the share shall be executed after obtaining
requisite permission from the Guardian Court by Smt. Ranjit Kaur. Later on,
the sale deed in respect of 11/12th share was executed by the co-sharers in
favour of plaintiff No.2-Parwin Kumar and Smt. Renu Mehta wife of plaintiff
No.1 vide sale deed dated 22.05.1981 for consideration of `20,530/- and
earnest money of `5,000/- was adjusted in the sale consideration. The
remaining sale consideration of `15,530/- was paid before the Sub-Registrar.
As stipulated in the agreement, Smt. Ranjit Kaur applied under Section 8 of
the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 [for short 'the Guardianship
Act'] to obtain permission of the Guardian Court to execute sale deed in
respect of the minor's share. Said permission was granted on 06.09.1981.
2 of 18
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:051177
RSA-2631-1989 2024:PHHC: 051177
Case of Plaintiffs:
4. Plaintiffs brought the suit for specific performance against
minor-Sukhwinder Singh through his mother/guardian Ranjit Kaur by alleging
that despite grant of permission by the Guardian Court, said defendant instead
of executing sale deed in their favour as per the agreement, had executed an
agreement regarding 1/12 share on 19.06.1982 in favour of defendant No.2 -
Rattan Chand (respondent No.2 herein through his LRs) at the rate of `4300/-
per biswas. Said agreement in favour of defendant No.2-Rattan Chand was
alleged to be null and void. Plaintiffs sought the agreement dated 05.05.1981
in their favour to be specifically enforced by executing the sale deed in their
favour in terms of the agreement, by submitting that plaintiffs have always
been ready and willing to perform their part of the contract; whereas,
defendants had failed to do so.
Stand of defendants:
5.1 Defendants resisted the claim of the plaintiffs. As per defendant
No.1-Sukhwinder Singh, there was no subsisting agreement and even if there
was any, the same was illegal and void. He pleaded further that a private
partition had already been effected amongst the co-sharers on 15.06.1980 and
the memorandum of partition was reduced in writing on 31.12.1980. He
pleaded further that he was not bound by any agreement to sell, as it was
against his interest, because the property was of much more value than the
price mentioned in the agreement. As per him, 3 biswas of land, which had
come to his share, was agreed to be sold at the rate of `4300/- per biswas in
favour of defendant No.2 - Rattan Chand and possession thereof was handed
over to said Rattan Chand at the time of execution of the agreement in his
favour. It was also pleaded that agreement with Rattan Chand was with
3 of 18
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:051177
RSA-2631-1989 2024:PHHC: 051177
specific boundaries and dimensions. Though, it was admitted that permission
had been granted by the Guardian Court, but it was submitted that sale deed in
favour of defendant No.2-Rattan Chand was in the interest of the minor, as he
had offered him the land for more price.
5.2 Similar pleas were taken by defendant No.2-Rattan Chand, who
also denied having knowledge of any prior agreement to sell dated 05.05.1981
in favour of the plaintiffs.
Issues for adjudication:
6. On pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the
ld. trial Court: -
"1. Whether defendant No. 1 through his mother and guardian Smt.
Ranjit Kaur executed an agreement of sale dated 5.5.1981 with
plaintiffs with respect of land including suit land?
2. Whether the plaintiffs are and have been ready and willing to
perform their part of contract of sale dated 5.5.1981? OPP.
3. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD
4. Whether plaintiffs are estopped from filing the suit by their act
and conduct?
5. Whether any private partition was effected between the co-
sharers on 15.6.1980 as alleged? If so its effect? OPD
6. Whether the agreement by defendant No. 1 through his mother
and natural guardian in favour of Defendant No. 2 is null and
void and ineffective against the rights of the plaintiffs? OPP
7. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for specific performance of
agreement of sale dated 5.5.1981? OPP
8. Whether the suit is barred under Order 2 Rule? OPD
9. Whether the plaintiffs have locus standi to file the present suit?
OPD
10. Whether the alleged agreement is against the interest of minor
is illegal, null and void? OPD
11. Relief."
4 of 18
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:051177
RSA-2631-1989 2024:PHHC: 051177
Decision by Trial Court:
7.1 After taking evidence produced by the parties, ld. trial Court
decreed the suit.
Findings by First Appellate Court:
7.2 However, in the appeal, though execution of agreement dated
05.05.1981 was found to have been proved, but it was observed that said
agreement was not for the benefit of the minor. The reliance of the trial Court
on the permission granted by the Guardian Court was held to be misplaced, as
it was nowhere mentioned either in the application for seeking permission or
in the order of the Guardian Court, as to what was the market value of the land
proposed to be sold and as to at what rate and to whom the same was being
sold. Ld. Appellate Court observed further that it was simply mentioned in the
application that land was of inferior quality and yielding no produce, without
noticing the fact that land was situated in the heart of the city and so, being
non-agricultural land, it could not yield any produce. It was further observed
that sale consideration (earnest money) regarding the share of the minor had
not been paid at the time of execution of the agreement to him. Ld. appellate
Court further found that market value was much more at the time of
agreement dated 05.05.1981 and so, under no stretch of imagination,
agreement could be held to be in the interest and benefit of the minor. Ld.
Appellate Court further found that property in dispute, as agreed to be sold,
was minor's undivided share and therefore, application under Section 8 of the
Guardianship Act in itself was not maintainable, in view of the bar contained
in Section 6 of the Guardianship Act.
7.3 Ld. Appellate Court further found that the entire earnest money
having already been adjusted at the time of execution of the sale deed dated
5 of 18
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:051177
RSA-2631-1989 2024:PHHC: 051177
22.05.1981 regarding remaining 11/12 share, so no agreement subsisted for
the purpose of enforcement and as such, there remained no privity of contract
between the plaintiffs and minor defendant and as such, no such agreement
could be executed.
7.4 First Appellate Court further found that the minor defendant-
Sukhwinder Singh, on attaining majority, had repudiated the contract as the
agreement on his behalf was voidable, by making a statement to that effect in
the Court.
7.5 Ld. First appellate Court further found that in the suit filed by the
plaintiffs for specific performance, there was no pleading to the effect that
proposed sale was in the benefit of the minor and as such, specific
performance could not be granted.
7.6 With these findings, the judgment of the trial Court was set aside
and the appeal was accepted, dismissing the suit of the plaintiffs.
Contentions for appellants - plaintiffs:
8.1 Assailing the aforesaid findings of the First Appellate Court, it is
contended by ld. counsel that as per the settled legal position, specific
performance of contract cannot be denied on account of rise in prices and that
a contract entered by the guardian on behalf of the minor is enforceable, as
has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Manik Chand and Anr Vs.
Ramchandra, 1981 AIR (Supreme Court) 519.
8.2 It is further argued that findings of the appellate Court are
mutually destructive, as on one hand the Appellate Court finds that there was
partition and on the other hand, it holds that in the case of undivided interest
of a minor in the joint property, the provisions of the Guardianship Act are not
applicable. It is contended that even if no such permission was required from
6 of 18
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:051177
RSA-2631-1989 2024:PHHC: 051177
the Guardian Court, that does not debar the suit for specific performance,
when execution of contract is proved.
8.3 Ld. counsel for the appellants also contend that as per Indian
Majority Act, 1875, minor of whose person or property, a guardian has been
appointed, attains the age of majority at 21 and therefore, defendant-
Sukhwinder Singh could not have repudiated the contract by appearing in the
witness box, as at that time, he had not attained the age of majority.
8.4 Still further, it is contended that partition of the land was not
proved and that each co-sharer is an owner of every parcel of the land and
therefore, the agreement of sale between the parties was subsisting, even if
sale deed regarding 11/12 share was already concluded and the earnest money
was adjusted towards the sale consideration.
8.5 With these submissions, prayer is made to set aside the impugned
judgment and decree passed by the First Appellate Court; and to restore the
judgment passed by the trial Court.
9. Needless to say, ld. counsel for the respondents-plaintiffs
defended the impugned judgment of the First Appellate Court on all aspects.
10. Along with the appeal, an application bearing CM No.4262-C of
1989 was also moved under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC seeking permission to
tender a copy of the mutation so as to contend that mutation with regard to the
alleged private partition amongst the co-sharers was rejected by the revenue
officer by order dated 16.05.1988 during pendency of the appeal. However,
said application was not pressed during arguments before this Court.
7 of 18
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:051177
RSA-2631-1989 2024:PHHC: 051177
11. I have considered submissions of both the sides and have
appraised the record carefully.
Analysis by this Court:
12. The execution of agreement dated 05.05.1981 in favour of the
plaintiffs is duly proved on record and the said findings of the Courts below is
a concurrent finding. The said agreement on behalf of defendant-Sukhwinder
Singh was executed by his mother Ranjit Kaur. It is also undisputed that in
terms of the stipulation of agreement, Ranjit Kaur moved an application Ex.P7
seeking permission of the Guardian Court to sell the share of minor and
necessary permission was granted on 06.09.1982 vide Ex.P8. However, the
question is that whether Court is bound to order specific performance of
contract in respect of a share of a minor, if it finds that transaction is not in the
interest and benefit of the minor. Answer to this question is NO.
13. Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 enunciates certain
principles for guidance of the Courts while exercising their discretion in
decreeing or refusing to decree suits for specific performance. The necessary
condition is that contract in itself must be legally valid and capable of
enforcement, otherwise the Court's discretion in granting or refusing its
specific performance will not arise.
14. The question as to which agreements made by the guardian of the
minor are enforceable in law, has been answered by Hon'ble Privy Council in
Shri Kakulam Subrahmanyam and another Vs. Kurra Subba Rao, AIR 1948
Privy Council 95, wherein their Lordships approved the following passage in
Pollock and Mulla's Indian Contract and Specific Relief Acts, 7th Edition:-
8 of 18
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:051177
RSA-2631-1989 2024:PHHC: 051177
"It is, however, different with regard to contracts entered into on behalf of a minor
by his guardian or by a manager of his estate. In such a case it has been held by the
High Courts of India, in cases which arose subsequent to the governing decision of
the Privy Council, that the contract can be specifically enforced by or against the
minor, if the contract is one which it is within the competence of the guardian to
enter into on his behalf so as to bind him by it, and, further, if it is for the benefit of
the minor. But if either of these two conditions is wanting, the contract cannot
be specifically enforced at all."
15. Above said judgment was later on relied upon by Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Sunder Singh and others Vs. Jiwan Singh and others,
1970 PLR 218, and after referring to the aforesaid passage of Pollock and
Mulla's Indian Contract and Specific Relief Acts, referred in Shri Kakulam
Subrahmanyam and another (Supra) by Privy Council, it was held as under:
"According to this ruling, therefore, such contracts can be specifically enforced by
or against the minors, if two conditions are satisfied : (i) if the contract is one which
it is within the competence of the guardian to enter into on his behalf so as to bind
him by it and (ii) if it is for the benefit of the minor. If either of these two conditions
is not satisfied, that contract cannot be specifically enforced at all. The powers of a
natural guardian are dealt with in section 8 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship
Act, 1956. Particular attention is invited to the provisions of sub-section (1) of that
section, according to which the natural guardian of a Hindu minor has power,
subject to the provisions of that section, to do all acts which are necessary or
reasonable and proper for the benefit of the minor or for the realisation, protection
or benefit of the minor's estate; but the guardian can in no case bind the minor by a
personal covenant."
16. It is thus clear from the aforesaid legal position that in order to
specifically enforce a contract entered into by a guardian on behalf of the
minor, it is necessary that: (i) contract should be within the competence of the
guardian to enter into on his behalf so as to bind him; and (ii) it is for the
benefit of the minor. If either of these two conditions are not satisfied, the
Contract cannot be specifically enforced at all.
9 of 18
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:051177
RSA-2631-1989 2024:PHHC: 051177
17. In the present case, the First Appellate Court has found that none
of the aforesaid two conditions were satisfied. As has been rightly found by
the First Appellate Court that it is the share of the minor in the joint family
property, which was agreed to be sold to the plaintiffs. The question is that
whether any permission for selling such share could have been granted or not.
18. Section 6 of the Hindu Minority & Guardianship Act reads as
under: -
"6. Natural guardians of a Hindu minor.--The natural guardians of a Hindu
minor; in respect of the minor's person as well as in respect of the minor's property
(excluding his or her undivided interest in joint family property), are--
(a) in the case of a boy or an unmarried girl--the father, and after him, the mother:
provided that the custody of a minor who has not completed the age of five years
shall ordinarily be with the mother;
(b) xxxxxxxxxxxx"
19. Thus, though the natural guardian of a Hindu minor in respect of
his person as well as property have been mentioned in Section 6 of the
Guardianship Act, but it is by excluding his or her undivided interest in joint
family property.
20. Section 12 of the Hindu Minority & Guardianship Act also
provides as under:
"12. Guadian not to be appointed for minor's undivided interest in joint family
property. -Where a minor has an undivided interest in joint family property and the
property is under the management of an adult member of the family, no guardian
shall be appointed for the minor in respect of such undivided interest.
Provide that nothing in this section shall be deemed to affect the jurisdiction
of High Court to appoint a Guardian in respect of such interest."
21. In view of the aforesaid provisions, application under Section 8
of the Guardianship Act for appointment of guardian in itself was not
10 of 18
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:051177
RSA-2631-1989 2024:PHHC: 051177
maintainable. As such, the mother of defendant No.1-Sukhwinder Singh was
not competent to sell the share of the minor in the joint Hindu family property.
22. Apart from above, let it be assumed for the sake of arguments
that being a natural guardian, the mother was competent to sell the share of
the minor in the property, still the Court was required to look into the aspect,
as to whether the agreement was in the interest and benefit of the minor,
before ordering for specific performance. By way of agreement dated
05.05.1981, the share of the minor was agreed to be sold on `700/- per biswa.
As rightly observed by the First Appellate Court that there was no material
before the trial Court to come to the conclusion, as to what was the actual
market price of the land proposed to be sold, compared to the price at which it
had been agreed to be sold. The trial Court only referred to the application
Ex.P7 moved under Section 8 of the Guardianship Act, wherein it was simply
mentioned that land was of inferior quality and not yielding any produce,
without considering the fact that land being situated in the heart of the city and
not being an agricultural land could not yield any produce. It was no where
mentioned in the application as to what was the market value of the land
proposed to be sold or as to at what rate the same was to be sold and to whom.
Except the contents of the application, there was no data before the Guardian
Court while granting permission under Section 8 of the Guardianship Act and
as such, simply on the basis of permission granted to the guardian, it cannot be
assumed that agreement was in the interest of benefit of the minor.
23. Ld. Appellate Court has also rightly observed that just after about
1 year of the agreement dated 5.5.1981 i.e., on 19.06.1982, defendant No.2
agreed to purchase the share of the minor at the rate of `4300/- per biswa,
11 of 18
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:051177
RSA-2631-1989 2024:PHHC: 051177
compared to `700 per biswas at which the mother of the minor had agreed to
sell the same to the plaintiffs. Not only this, ld. Appellate Court has also taken
into account the statement of the witnesses examined by the plaintiffs
themselves, inasmuch as PW1 Bhagwan Singh admitted that market value of
similar land was `5 lakh per bigha. PW2 Sardara Singh admitted that 1 bigha
of land for abadi fetched at least `1 lakh or so. These admissions clearly
indicated that market value of the suit land was much more than the price for
which guardian of the minor had agreed to sell the share of the minor.
24. No doubt, it is true that rise in price cannot be a reason to decline
specific performance of the contract, but when the interest and benefit of the
minor is involved, Court is certainly bound to see as to whether the proposed
sale is in the interest and benefit of the minor or not. As such, it is held that ld.
First Appellate Court, based upon the aforesaid evidence, did not commit any
error in coming to the conclusion that the proposed sale was not in the interest
of the minor-defendant and so, rightly refused to enforce specific performance
of the contract.
25. Reliance can be placed on Mohinder Singh and others Vs.
Paramjit Singh Major and another, 1983 PLR 677, wherein it has been held
by this Court that the contract is not enforceable, if it is against the interest of
the minor, though it will be enforceable if it benefits him.
26. Sh. Daya Ram Vs. Smt. Raksha Kumari and another, 1985 (2)
PLR 615, can also be referred, wherein it was observed by this Court that
there is no law forcing the minor to file a suit to avoid the contract; and that
after attaining majority, he can repudiate the contract even without filing the
suit. This Court also held that in order to succeed in a suit for possession
12 of 18
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:051177
RSA-2631-1989 2024:PHHC: 051177
based upon the specific performance of contract, regarding the share of a
minor, it is necessary to establish two facts, firstly that natural guardian had
entered into the contract on behalf of the minor and secondly that contract was
for the benefit of the minor. In the case before this Court, though the first
ingredient had been established, but the second was neither alleged not
proved. It was held that vendee could not be held to be entitled to specific
performance of contract regarding the share of the minor, as the proposed sale
was not in the interest of the minor-defendant
27. Apart from above, this is the admitted position than an amount of
`5000/- was paid as an earnest money at the time of execution of agreement to
sell dated 05.05.1981 in respect of the entire land i.e. 1 bigha 12 biswas at the
rate of `700/- per biswa, which included the share of the minor defendant. The
total sale price works out to be `22,400/-. The sale deed in respect of 11/12
share by the other co-sharers was executed on 22.05.1981 for consideration of
`20,530/-, which is the proportionate sale price for the 11/12 share of the land
at the rate of `700/- per biswas. It is not disputed that the entire earnest money
of `5000/- was adjusted in the sale consideration and that at the time of
registration of the sale deed, an amount of `15,730/- was paid.
28. It is, thus, clear that even proportionate earnest money to the
extent of share of the minor defendant had been adjusted in the sale price for
11/12 share. Thus, as far as the share of minor is concerned, no earnest money
was left. In these circumstances, the question is as to whether any sale
agreement was still subsisting, which could have been specifically enforced.
13 of 18
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:051177
RSA-2631-1989 2024:PHHC: 051177
29. A similar question arose before the Division Bench of Delhi High
Court in Ravindra Kishore Sinha Vs. Smt. Manjula Bhushan, 2009(22) RCR
(Civil) 624, wherein it was observed as under: -
"Undisputed facts on record are that as per the Agreement of Sale, Rupees Four Lac
was an earnest money for the specific performance and the balance sale
consideration of Rs.1.96 crores was to be paid at the time of execution and
registration of the Sale Deed in respect of second and third floors, etc. of the
property in question. Once the entire earnest money stands adjusted, towards the
sale consideration of the basement, ground and first floor of the property in
question, then in the absence of the earnest money, for the subject property, i.e.,
second and third floor etc., the Agreement of Sale does not survive and in fact
stands abandoned. There is irrefutable substance in the opinion of the learned Single
Judge that once the earnest money of Rupees Four Lacs was adjusted, the
agreement for purchase of the second and third floors would be reduced to an
unenforceable contract for want of consideration. Although, it is the plea of the
Appellate that the said adjustment of the entire earnest money was done with the
mutual consent of the parties, but this is all oral and it does not stand reflected either
in the aforesaid Notices or Replies thereto."
30. Thus, once the entire earnest money stands adjusted towards the
sale consideration of part of the property agreed to be sold, the agreement of
sale will not survive in respect of the remaining part of the property and will
become redundant, inasmuch as no earnest money is left for the remaining
part of the property regarding which sale deed has not been executed so far
and so, the specific performance of such remaining part cannot be allowed.
31. In the present case also, since the entire earnest money had been
adjusted at the time of execution of sale deed of 11/12 share, it is obvious that
no earnest money was left for the share of minor-defendant and as such, it is
held that there was not subsisting agreement to sell between the parties.
32. Apart from above, defendant-Sukhwinder Singh, during the
pendency of the suit, claimed to have attained majority and by appearing in
14 of 18
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:051177
RSA-2631-1989 2024:PHHC: 051177
the witness box, he repudiated the agreement in favour of the plaintiffs and
accepted the agreement in favour of defendant No.2.
33. It is an undisputed legal proposition that a minor can repudiate
the contract entered into by his guardian, on his attaining majority, as the
agreement on behalf of minor is voidable. Ld. counsel for the appellants has
contended that at the time when defendant-Sukhwinder Singh entered into the
witness box so as to repudiate the contract on 18.03.1986, he had not attained
majority, having not reached the age of 21 years. Ld. counsel in this regard
refers to Section 3 of the Indian Majority Act, 1875 (before its amendment in
1999), which reads as under: -
"3. Age of majority of persons domiciled in India.
Subject as aforesaid, every minor of whose person or property, or both, a
guardian, other than a guardian for a suit within the meaning of Chapter XXXI of
the Code of Civil Procedure, has been or shall be appointed or declared by any
Court of Justice before the minor has attained the age of eighteen years, and every
minor of whose property the superintendence has been or shall be assumed by any
Court of Wards before the minor has attained that age shall, notwithstanding
anything contained in the Indian Succession Act or in any other enactment, be
deemed to have attained his majority when he shall have completed his age of
twenty-one years and not before.
Subject as aforesaid, every other person domiciled in India shall be deemed
to have attained his majority when he shall have completed his age of eighteen
years and not before."
34. It is contended by Ld. counsel that defendant N: 1 was born on
03.12.1966, as per evidence on record, and so on the date of his appearance in
Court, he had not attained the age of 21 years. This Court does not find merit
in the aforesaid contention.
35. Section 4 of the Hindu Minority & Guardianship Act provides
the definition of 'minor' as a person who has not completed the age of
15 of 18
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:051177
RSA-2631-1989 2024:PHHC: 051177
eighteen years. Section 5 of this Act has the overriding effect of any other law
in force immediately before the commencement of this Act, insofar as it is
inconsistent with any of the provisions of the Act. Section 5 of the Act, reads
as under: -
"5. Over-riding effect of Act.--Save as otherwise expressly provided in this
Act,--
(a) any text, rule or interpretation of Hindu Law or any custom or usage as part of
that law in force immediately before the commencement of this Act Shall cease to
have effect with respect to any matter for which provision is made in this Act.
(b) any other law in force immediately before the commencement of this Act shall
cease to have effect in so far as it is inconsistent with any of the provisions
contained in this Act."
36. In view of Section 5(b) of the Hindu Minority & Guardianship
Act, it is held that the age of majority in this case shall be considered to be 18
years, as the contrary provision contained in Indian Majority Act, is
inconsistent with Section 4 of Hindu Minority & Guardianship Act. As such,
defendant-Sukhwinder Singh having repudiated the contract, plaintiffs-
appellants cannot pray for enforcement of specific performance.
37. In the matter of Parkash Navnitbhai Vs. Unknown, 1986(2)
HLR 291, Gujarat High Court has taken a view that when guardian of a person
and property is appointed by the Court, the minor will attain majority after 21
years and not 18 years and that provisions of Hindu Minority & Guardianship
Act, 1956 do not override the provision of The Indian Majority Act, 1875.
This Court is in respectful disagreement with the view taken by the Gujarat
High Court.
38. Further, Ld. counsel for the appellants referred to a decision of
Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in Manik Chand and another Vs.
16 of 18
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:051177
RSA-2631-1989 2024:PHHC: 051177
Ramchandra, 1981 AIR (Supreme Court) 519 to contend that when contract is
entered into by guardian on behalf of minor, the same is enforceable. In the
case before Hon'ble Supreme Court, two minor plaintiffs entered into an
agreement through their mother/guardian with the respondent to purchase a
house for a sum of `11,000/-. Earnest money of `1000/- was paid. Balance
amount was to be paid at the time of registration of the sale deed. As
respondents did not carry out their part of agreement, the suit for specific
performance was filed. Though the suit was decreed by the trial Court, but in
appeal, the High Court held that though the agreement was entered on behalf
of the minors and there was breach of contract on behalf of the respondent,
but decree for specific performance could not be granted for want of
mutuality. Setting aside the aforesaid decision of the High Court, Hon'ble
Supreme Court held that a minor has no legal competence to enter into a
contract or authorize someone on his behalf to enter into contract, but under
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 in the benefit of the minor.
39. There can be no dispute to the legal position as above, but it is
not applicable to the facts of the present case, because in the present case, it
has been found that the contract entered on behalf of the minor by the
guardian was not in the interest and benefit of the minor, whereas, in the
above case before Hon'ble Supreme Court, the contract was found to be in the
interest of minors and so, it was held to be enforceable.
40. Ld. Counsel for appellants has also referred to a decision of the
Full Bench of this Court rendered in Surta Singh Vs. Pritam Singh, 1983
17 of 18
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:051177
RSA-2631-1989 2024:PHHC: 051177
PLR 121, wherein minor had challenged the transfer of an immovable
property though his natural guardian in contravention of Section 8(1) and 8(2)
of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act. It was held by the Full Bench
that quandam minor can bring the suit only within the prescribed period of
three years after attaining majority under Article 60 of the Indian Limitation
Act, 1963. The same view was taken by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Murugan
and others Vs. Kesava Gounder (dead) through LRs and others, 2019 (2)
RCR (Civil) 565.
41. Again, there can be no dispute to the legal position as above, but
it is not applicable to the facts of the present case, because it is not the transfer
which is under challenge. Rather, it is the agreement to sell executed by a
guardian on behalf of minor, which is sought to be enforced by the plaintiffs-
vendees by way of specific performance and such a contract can be repudiated
by the minor on attaining majority.
42. On account of the entire discussion as above, it is held that there
is no merit in the appeal. Ld. First Appellate Court rightly came to the
conclusion that decree for specific performance could not be granted in favour
of the plaintiffs-appellants, as the same was not in the interest and benefit of
the minor.
Accordingly, the present appeal is dismissed.
(DEEPAK GUPTA)
15.04.2024 JUDGE
Vivek
Whether speaking/reasoned? Yes
Whether reportable? yes
18 of 18
