Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Kasturbai Himmat Patil, filed a suit for specific performance of contract against the original defendant Lilabai Patil, alleging that Lilabai had entered into an agreement to sell suit land on 06.05.1974 for Rs. 25,000, with Rs. 5,500 paid as earnest money and possession handed over. The agreement was executed on behalf of Lilabai's minor children for legal necessity. Lilabai died in 1980, and her son Balkrishna Patil allegedly misled the plaintiff and executed a registered agreement on 10.02.1984 showing total consideration of Rs. 35,000. The plaintiff claimed she was ready and willing to perform her part. The trial court dismissed the suit, and the first appellate court confirmed the dismissal. The appellant then filed a second appeal. The High Court noted that the courts below concurrently found that the agreement of 1974 was executed by Lilabai as guardian of her minor children without prior permission of the court under Section 8 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, and thus was not binding on the minor's property. The plaintiff failed to prove legal necessity. The High Court held that no substantial question of law arose and dismissed the appeal, affirming the concurrent findings.
Headnote
A) Specific Performance - Agreement to Sell by Guardian of Minor - Section 8 Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 - The plaintiff sought specific performance of an agreement to sell executed by the defendant as guardian of her minor children. The courts below concurrently held that the agreement was not binding on the minor's property as no prior permission of the court was obtained under Section 8 of the Act. The High Court in second appeal refused to interfere with concurrent findings of fact, holding that the agreement was voidable at the instance of the minor and the plaintiff failed to prove legal necessity. (Paras 2-5) B) Second Appeal - Interference with Concurrent Findings - Section 100 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - The High Court reiterated that in a second appeal, the court cannot reappreciate evidence or interfere with concurrent findings of fact unless they are perverse or based on no evidence. The findings of the lower appellate court were based on proper appreciation of evidence and did not give rise to any substantial question of law. (Paras 5-6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the concurrent findings of fact by the courts below refusing specific performance of contract based on an agreement executed by a guardian of minor without prior permission of the court under Section 8 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, can be interfered with in second appeal.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the second appeal, affirming the concurrent judgments of the courts below refusing specific performance of contract.
Law Points
- Specific performance
- Agreement to sell by guardian of minor
- Section 8 Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act
- 1956
- Concurrent findings of fact
- Second appeal limited to substantial question of law
