Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Saritha P Shetty, filed a Regular Second Appeal under Section 100 CPC against the judgment and decree dated 18.11.2020 passed in RA No.04/2015 by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kundapura, which dismissed her appeal and confirmed the judgment and decree dated 03.08.2015 in OS No.32/2013 passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Kundapura. The original suit was filed by the respondent No.1, K. Shrinivasa Bhandary, for specific performance of a contract for sale of a property. The defendants were the appellant (defendant No.1) and her minor son Prakhyath Shetty (defendant No.2). The Trial Court decreed the suit, and the First Appellate Court confirmed it. The appellant raised a substantial question of law regarding the validity of the contract in view of Section 8 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, arguing that no permission was obtained from the court for the sale of the minor's property. The High Court, after hearing both sides, held that Section 8 does not require prior court permission for a contract for sale entered into by a natural guardian; it only applies to actual transfers like sale or mortgage. The contract for sale was found to be for the benefit of the minor, and the concurrent findings of fact were not perverse. The appeal was dismissed, and the decree for specific performance was upheld.
Headnote
A) Specific Performance - Minor's Property - Section 8 Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 - Natural Guardian's Contract - The suit for specific performance of a contract for sale of property belonging to a minor was decreed. The appellant contended that the contract was void as no prior permission under Section 8 was obtained. The Court held that Section 8 does not prohibit a natural guardian from entering into a contract for sale of minor's property; it only requires court permission for sale or mortgage. A contract for sale is not a transfer and is enforceable if it is for the benefit of the minor. The concurrent findings of fact that the contract was for the benefit of the minor were not perverse. (Paras 2-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Trial Court and First Appellate Court were justified in decreeing the suit for specific performance ignoring the fact that defendant No.2 was a minor and no permission was sought under Section 8 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the second appeal, holding that the Trial Court and First Appellate Court were justified in decreeing the suit for specific performance. The substantial question of law was answered in the affirmative, i.e., the courts below were justified in decreeing the suit.
Law Points
- Specific performance
- Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act
- 1956
- Section 8
- Natural guardian
- Minor's property
- Contract for sale
- Benefit of minor
- Court permission
- Enforceability
Case Details
2020 LawText (KAR) (08) 20
Sri. Vyasa Rao K.S. for appellant; Sri. Chandranath Ariga K. for respondent No.1
K. Shrinivasa Bhandary and Prakhyath Shetty
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Second appeal against concurrent decrees for specific performance of a contract for sale of property involving a minor defendant.
Remedy Sought
Appellant sought to set aside the decrees for specific performance on the ground that the contract was void for want of court permission under Section 8 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956.
Filing Reason
Appellant contended that the Trial Court and First Appellate Court erred in decreeing the suit for specific performance without considering that defendant No.2 was a minor and no permission under Section 8 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 was obtained.
Previous Decisions
Trial Court decreed the suit for specific performance on 03.08.2015 in OS No.32/2013; First Appellate Court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the decree on 18.11.2020 in RA No.04/2015.
Issues
Whether the suit for specific performance could be decreed when the contract was entered into by a natural guardian of a minor without prior court permission under Section 8 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956.
Submissions/Arguments
Appellant argued that the contract for sale of minor's property without court permission is void and unenforceable.
Respondent argued that Section 8 does not require permission for a contract for sale, only for actual transfer, and the contract was for the benefit of the minor.
Ratio Decidendi
Section 8 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 does not prohibit a natural guardian from entering into a contract for sale of minor's property without prior court permission; such a contract is enforceable if it is for the benefit of the minor. The requirement of court permission under Section 8 applies only to actual transfers like sale or mortgage, not to contracts for sale.
Judgment Excerpts
Section 8 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 does not prohibit a natural guardian from entering into a contract for sale of minor's property; it only requires court permission for sale or mortgage.
A contract for sale is not a transfer and is enforceable if it is for the benefit of the minor.
Procedural History
The suit OS No.32/2013 was filed by respondent No.1 for specific performance. The Trial Court decreed the suit on 03.08.2015. The appellant filed RA No.04/2015 before the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kundapura, which was dismissed on 18.11.2020. The appellant then filed the present second appeal under Section 100 CPC, which was admitted on the substantial question of law regarding Section 8 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956.
Acts & Sections
- Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956: Section 8
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Section 100
