Earnest money forfeiture and minor's contractual share: defaulting purchaser denied refund, with prior court permission rendered unnecessary on the facts.

A purchaser who defaults under a contract making time essential cannot claim refund where the agreement treats the payment as earnest money and expressly permits forfeiture on default; the forfeiture is sustained when the purchaser took possession, failed to perform, and the other side showed loss and prejudice. The note also states that a guardian cannot alienate a minor's property without prior court permission under the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, but that requirement may become unnecessary on the facts where the minor attains majority during the proceedings and elects to abide by the contract. The purchaser could not rely on the minor's interest to avoid the bargain, and the forfeiture was upheld.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the appellant was entitled to refund of the amount paid under the agreement despite default on his part and the respondents' forfeiture clause; (ii) whether the minor's share in the agreement required prior court permission under the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956.

Issue (i): whether the appellant was entitled to refund of the amount paid under the agreement despite default on his part and the respondents' forfeiture clause.

Analysis: The agreement fixed a clear time limit for execution of the sale deed, making time essential to performance. The appellant took possession, attempted development of the land, failed to obtain layout sanction, and thereafter sought to avoid the contract. The amount paid was treated as earnest money forming part of the bargain, and the contract expressly empowered forfeiture on default. The respondents also established loss and prejudice from the appellant's conduct.

Conclusion: The appellant was not entitled to refund, and the respondents were entitled to forfeit the amount.

Issue (ii): whether the minor's share in the agreement required prior court permission under the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956.

Analysis: Under the Act, a guardian cannot alienate a minor's property without court permission, and such a transaction is voidable at the instance of the minor. Here, the minor attained majority during the proceedings and adopted the defence of the other defendants, thereby electing to abide by the contract. No written request had been made by the appellant for obtaining court sanction, and the factual record showed that the appellant himself was not willing to perform the contract.

Conclusion: Prior court permission became unnecessary on the facts, and the appellant could not rely on the minor's interest to avoid the contract.

Final Conclusion: The agreement failed because of the appellant's default, the forfeiture of the paid amount was upheld, and the appeal failed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a purchaser defaults under a contract making time essential, and the agreement contains a forfeiture stipulation, the earnest money may be forfeited; a minor's subsequent majority and election to abide by the contract can render prior court permission unnecessary on the facts.

---