Mohinder Singh and others vs Paramjit Singh and another

Gokal Chand Mital, J.—On 31st October, 1969, Mohinder Singh and others executed an agreement to sell 72 Kanals 16 Marlas of land for Rs. one lac to Paramjit and others. Rs. 28,190/- is alleged to have been paid as earnest money and Rs. 17,210/- was to be paid, at the time of registration. The land was under mortgage with father of the proposed vendees, and the balance amount which was left with them to be paid to the mortgagee. The sale was to be completed by 25th Har, 2027, BK, (1970). On 31st July, 1970, the proposed vendees (hereinafter called the plaintiffs) gave notice to the proposed vendors (hereinafter called the defendants). The notice was refused. On 7th October, 1970, a suit for specific performance of contract was filed. The suit was contested and it was pleaded that one of the plaintiffs was a minor and, therefore, the contract was void and that defendants were ready and willing to perform their part of the contract whereas the plaintiffs were not.

On the contest of the parties, the following issues were framed :--

Whether defendant Nos. 1, 2 and 3 executed the agreement of sale dated 31st October, 1969 for the sale of the suit land in favour of the plaintiffs ? OPP

Whether the defendants were paid an amount of Rs. 28,190/- as earnest money under the agreement of sale in dispute, if so its effect ? OPP

Whether the plaintiffs have been ready and are willing to perform their own part of the contract ? OPP

Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to recover any amount on account of damages. It so to what amount are they entitled ? OPP

Whether the agreement in dispute is void and un-enforce-able on account of the minority of Parget Singh plaintiff No. 2 ? OPD.

Whether the equitable relief prayed for cannot be granted

in view of the existence of the sons of Mohinder Singh and Sukhdev Singh defendant ? OPD.

Whether the defendants are entitled to any special costs ? OPD.

Relief.

After evidence was led the trial Court by judgment and decree dated 1st March, 1974 decreed the suit after recording the following findings. Under issue No. 1, it was held that agreement dated 31st October, 1969, Exhibit P-2 was duly executed ; under issue No. 2, it was held that Rs. 28,190/- was paid as the earnest money ; under issue No. 3 it was held that the plaintiffs were ready and willing to perform their part of the contract and they had served notice on the defendants and also appeared before the Sub Registrar on 7th August, 1970 for getting the sale deed registered and to pay the balance consideration, which was proved by Exhibit P-1; under issue No. 4, it was held that the plaintiffs were not entitled to recovery any damages as they had sued for specific performance only; under issue No. 5, it was held that the agreement of sale was not void nor un-enforceable because of the minority of Parget Singh plaintiff; and issue Nos. 6 and 7 were decided against the defendants. The defendants have come up in appeal.

The learned counsel for the appellants has challenged the findings recorded by the Court below on issue Nos. 3 and 5 only.

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, and on appraisal of the record I find that the findings on both the issues recorded by the Court below are passed on correct appreciation of evidence as also in law. Any contract, which may be detrimental to the interest of a minor would not be enforceable against him but a contract which benefits him is enforceable. In this case, the agreement of sale was for the benefit of a minor also and he has sued to enforce the same. As regards the other matter it is clearly established on the record that the plaintiffs were ready and willing to perform their part of contract. The defendants had totally denied the execution of the agreement. Under issues Nos. 1 and 2, which have not been challenged before me, it was held that the agreement was duly executed and that an amount of Rs. 28,190/- was paid as earnest money. Out of the total consideration of Rs. one lac, only 17,210/-was to be paid at the time of registration and rest of the amount was to be left with the vendees for payment to the mortgagee-mortgagee being father of the vendees. Under these circumstances, even little evidence on behalf of the plaintiffs would be sufficient to hold that they were ready and willing to perform their part of the contract. Dalip Singh plaintiff stated that they came to the Tehsil to complete the sale deed and applied to the Sub-Registrar to prove their presence but the vendors did not appear. The order of the Sub-Registrar is Exhibit P-4, which shows that one of the vendees appeared on 7th August, 1970 for getting the sale deed completed. Besides, this, the plaintiffs gave notice to the defendants to complete the sale deed. Accordingly, findings recorded by the trial Court on issues Nos. 3 and 5 are upheld.

In view of the above, the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.