Akkinepally Yadagiri vs Mitta Ananthareddy (died) and Another

Ramesh Madhav Bapat, J.—The appellant herein was the defendant in O.S.513/82 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Nalgonda, filed by the respondents herein. The respondents herein filed a suit for specific performance of the agreement alleged to have been executed by the defendant by accepting a sum of Rs. 9,000/- agreeing to sell the suit schedule property. When the defendant did not keep up his promise, the respondents-plaintiffs were constrained to file the aforesaid suit. The learned District Munsif decreed the suit for Rs. 9,000/- and refused to grant main relief of specific performance of the agreement.

Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and decree of the trial Court, the defendant-appellant herein filed an appeal- A.S. No. 7 of 1994 in the Court of the District Judge, Nalgonda. The plaintiffs-respondents herein filed cross-objections. The learned District Judge dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant-defendant and allowed the cross-objections filed by the respondents-plaintiffs giving a decree for specific performance of the contract in their favour. Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and decree of the 1st appellate Court, the original defendant-appellant has approached this Court by way of filing the second appeal.

While admitting the second appeal, a substantial question of law was made out, which reads as under:-

"Whether the trial (sic. 1st appellate) Court is justified in granting decree for specific performance of the agreement and directing the appellant to register the sale deed when the trial Court having gone into all aspects of the case granted alternate relief to refund the sale consideration"?

Learned Counsel for the appellant herein pointed out that the appellant was a minor; at the time of the agreement he was not represented by his natural father as a guardian and, therefore, the agreement itself is void and it cannot be enforced in the Court of law.

While rebutting the aforesaid argument, learned Counsel for the respondents-plaintiffs brought to my notice a ruling reported in Subbareddy v. Guruva Reddy, AIR 1930 Madras 425 wherein the High Court of Madras held that "a sale deed is not void by the reason of its having been executed in favour of a person while he was a minor". The said ruling was based upon the earlier ruling reported in Raghavachariar v. Srinivasa Raghavachariar, AIR (1916) 40 Madras 308. Once it is held that the sale in favour of the minor is perfectly valid, then there is no reason to hold that the agreement is void ab initio. It further appears from the judgment of the 1st appellate Court that the learned Judge granted the main relief of specific relief of the contract on the ground that the plaintiffs have paid the entire consideration and there was no default on their part at any point of time. The 1st appellate Court further held that the trial Court erred in granting alternate relief of refund of Rs. 9,000/-. Considering the logic applied by the 1st appellate Court, this Court is of the considered view that the logic applied by the 1st appellate Court has a legal force.

The substantial question of law which is made out at the time of admission of the second appeal is not a substantial question of law. It is purely a question of fact which has been considered by both the Courts below.

Therefore, this Court holds that there is no merit in the second appeal. It is, accordingly, dismissed confirming the judgment and decree passed by the 1st appellate Court. No costs.