Sale agreement proved by direct and corroborative evidence, but specific performance denied for minors; refund with interest ordered.

Proof of a sale agreement was accepted where direct testimony from the plaintiff and an attesting witness, together with corroborative bank and conduct evidence, established execution despite a forgery defence. Although a minor's undivided interest in joint family property may not always require prior court permission for alienation, the parties had expressly stipulated that such permission was needed, so the agreement could not be enforced against the minors without it. The first defendant's withdrawal of the guardianship proceeding amounted to contractual frustration, but specific performance was refused on equitable grounds because of delay, changed property values, and hardship to the minors. Restitution of the advance with interest was treated as the appropriate relief.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the agreement of sale was genuine and duly proved; (ii) Whether the agreement was binding on the minor defendants and whether prior court permission was necessary for alienation of their share; (iii) Whether the first defendant committed breach of contract and whether the plaintiff was entitled to specific performance or only refund of advance.

Issue (i): Whether the agreement of sale was genuine and duly proved.

Analysis: The defence of forgery placed the burden on the plaintiff to prove execution. The plaintiff examined herself and an independent attesting witness who had also negotiated the transaction. Their evidence consistently supported the agreement and the advance payment, and was corroborated by the bank pay order and certificate. The first defendant's conduct in filing a petition for permission to sell, and thereafter withdrawing it without replying to the legal notice, also supported the plaintiff's version. The trial court's reliance on a casual comparison of signatures was held unsafe in the face of direct and corroborative evidence.

Conclusion: The agreement of sale was proved to be genuine and its execution was established in favour of the appellant.

Issue (ii): Whether the agreement was binding on the minor defendants and whether prior court permission was necessary for alienation of their share.

Analysis: Although the general rule under the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act requires prior court permission for alienation of a minor's immovable property, that requirement does not apply to a minor's undivided interest in joint family property managed by an adult member. At the same time, the parties themselves had consciously incorporated a stipulation in the agreement requiring court permission before sale of the minors' share. In that contractual setting, the plaintiff could not later contend that such permission was unnecessary.

Conclusion: The agreement could not be enforced against the minors without the contemplated permission, and this issue was answered against the appellant on the contractual stipulation.

Issue (iii): Whether the first defendant committed breach of contract and whether the plaintiff was entitled to specific performance or only refund of advance.

Analysis: The first defendant had undertaken to seek permission for sale but withdrew the pending guardianship proceeding, thereby frustrating completion of the transaction. The plaintiff proved readiness and willingness and also established payment of substantial advance. However, considering the lapse of time, the death of the first defendant, the change in property values, and the hardship that specific enforcement would cause to the minors, equitable relief of specific performance was declined. Since the advance payment stood proved, restitution with interest was found appropriate.

Conclusion: Breach was made out, but specific performance was refused and refund of the advance with interest was ordered in favour of the appellant.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded only to the extent of setting aside the dismissal decree and securing restitution of the advance amount with interest and costs, while the prayer for specific performance was declined on equitable grounds.

Ratio Decidendi: Proof of execution may be accepted from consistent direct evidence and corroborative circumstances, but specific performance may still be refused where contractual enforcement against minors would cause undue hardship and equity favours restitution instead.

---