ORDER
D. Raju, J.
1. The above appeal has been filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the judgment of the learned single Judge of this Court dated, 13.11.1991 in A.S.No. 1271 of 1980 and cross objections filed therein, whereunder the learned single Judge has not only dismissed the appeal filed by the defendants in O.S.No. 85 of 1979 on the file of Sub Court, Chengalpattu, but has also allowed the cross objections filed by the plaintiff, wherein he challenged the decree passed by the learned trial judge in respect of the disallowed portion of the relief claimed.
2. The plaintiff has entered into an agreement of sale dated 24.6.1971 with the defendants, whereunder the defendants have agree to sell the one item of the suit properties to the plaintiff for a sum of Rs. 9000. Since the same was not sufficient to wipe of all the debts and liabilities, on 16.8.1973 the defendants executed and registered this agreement of sale of all the five items for Rs. 27,000. The property originally belonged to Kanniappa Mudaliar, who mortgaged the same to Adambakkam Janopakara Saswadha Nidhi Ltd., Alandur. He died in 1964 and the defendants are his heirs, the 1st defendant being the wife, the 2nd defendant being the son and defendants 3 and 4 being daughters. In the light of the threat by the mortgage institution, it become necessary for the defendants to raise funds by again mortgaging the property after obtaining permission of the District Court, Chengalpattu in O.P.No. 9 of 1966. Apart from the above commitments, there appear to be some decrees obtained by some other people against the defendants in addition to the arrears of property tax, driving the defendants to the necessity of selling the properties to clear all those commitments. It appears that the 4th defendant by name Bhuvaneswari, was a minor then and when sanction was sought for to sell the property including the share of the said minor, the District Court, Chengalpattu rejected O.P.No. 93 of 1974 filed therefor. Notwithstanding all these, on the failure of the defendants to execute the sale in terms of the agreement of sale dated 16.8.1973, the suit for specific performance came to be filed.
3. The defendants contested the claim. Both parties adduced, during the course of trial, oral and documentary evidence. Thereupon, by a judgment and decree dated 18.7.1980, the learned trial Judge, decreed the suit for specific performance of the contract, in so far as it was against defendants 1 to 3 and dismissing the suit claim as against minor 4th defendant.
4. Aggrieved, defendants filed A.S.No. 1271 of 1980. The plaintiff, who has lost the claim in respect of the share of the minor, filed cross objections. The appeal and the cross objections come to be heard together and the learned single judge, as noticed earlier, not only dismissed the appeal filed by the defendants, but allowed the cross objections and held that there shall be a decree in favour of the plaintiff in respect of the entire property including the share of the 4th defendant also. Hence the above appeal.
5. Mr. Nissar, learned counsel appearing for the appellants contended that it was one of the terms of the agreement itself that sanction for the sale contracted under the agreement in question has to be obtained from the competent court and consequently it was not correct for the plaintiff to contend or the learned single Judge to come to the conclusion that it was not necessary to obtain specific permission Under Section 8 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianships consequently the judgment of the learned single Judge is liable to be set aside. As for that portion of the decree concurrently passed against defendants 1 to 3, learned counsel tried to project the stand that the agreement of sale in question was obtained by coercion and undue influence as security for the amount received by the appellants 1 and 2 and, therefore, the relief of specific performance ought to have been rejected in its entirety.
6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents, while adopting the reasons assigned by the learned single judge and also to some extent the reasons assigned by the learned trial judge, substantiated his stand, contending that the suit has been rightly decreed and the reasons assigned therefor are quite in accordance with law and no exception could be taken to the well merited conclusions arrived at in granting the relief to the plaintiff.
7. We have carefully considered the submissions of learned counsel appearing on either side. In our view, there are no merits whatsoever in the plea about the alleged coercion and undue influence in the execution of the agreement to sell. The fact that pursuant to the said agreement of sale, the competent court was also moved for the sanction in so far as it related to the interest of the minor itself would belie the claim of the so called undue influence and coercion. This grievance needs mention, only to be rejected. That apart, the learned trial Judge as well as the first Appellate Judge, has adverted to this aspect in detail and concurrently found that the objections in this regard has no merit and we do not find any infirmity whatsoever in the conclusions arrived at concurrently by both the learned trial judge as well as the first appellate judge. Consequently, the said objection is rejected.
8. As for the other ground of challenge that in the absence of an order of sanction from the competent court in terms of Section 8 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, the interest of the minor could not be compelled to be sold by virtue of the agreement to sell, which is sought to be specifically enforced, particularly in the teeth of the rejection of such claim for sanction by the Court, though attractive as the submission may look we are of the view that there is no merit in the said ground of challenge. Though it might have been agreed to between the parties that sanction has to be obtained in respect of the minor's interest or share, it should not be overlooked that such stipulation was for the benefit of the purchaser and if the plaintiff is prepared to purchase the same even without a sanction from the Court, it is no reason for the appellants to contend that in the absence of such sanction in respect of the minor's share, the same cannot be compelled to be sold by enforcing the agreement of sale. This question as to the necessity for obtaining the sanction of the District Court Under Section 8 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act in a matter of the kind in the case of sale by mother of the minor child in respect of a property belonging to the joint family in the absence of the father, and in her capacity as the manager, and natural guardian came up directly for consideration before the Apex Court in the decision in Sri Narayan Bal and others and Sri Sridhar Sutar and others, : [1996]1SCR999 . In the light of the above decision of the Apex Court, we consider it un-necessary to advert to the other series of decision in this regard. That was also a case, therein two brothers constituted a joint Hindu family. One of the brothers had a wife, an adult son and a few minor sons. The other brother also died but had a son and he too died leaving behind his wife and few minor sons. The sons of one of the brothers and the widow of the other brother for herself and as guardian of her minor sons and the wife of the son of the other brother, for herself and as guardian of her minor sons, executed a sale deed pertaining to certain joint family lands in favour of the defendant in those proceedings, who appears to have subsequently sold that property to the other defendant. After all these, the members of the original joint family filed a suit for a declaration that the sale of the joint family property by their guardians were vitiated. It is in that context, apart from the other questions of fraud, misrepresentation and undue influence alleged, the question about the want of sanction Under Section 8 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act as a factor vitiating the sale also fell for the consideration of the Apex Court. The learned Judge in dealing the said issue, have held as follows:-
'4. Section 6 of the Act inter alia provides that the natural guardians of a Hindu Minor, in respect of the Minor's person as well as in respect of the minor's property (excluding his or her undivided interest in joint family property'), are in the case of boy or an unmarried girl - the father, and after him, the mother; provided that the custody of a minor who has not completed the age of five years shall ordinarily be with the mother. Section 8 thereof inter alia provides that the natural guardian of a Hindu minor has power, subject to the provisions of this Section, to do all acts which are necessary or reasonable and proper for the benefit of the minor or for the realization, protection or benefit of the minor's estate; but the guardian can in no case bind the minor by a personal convenient. Further more the natural guardian shall not, without the previous permission of the Court, mortgage or charge, or transfer by sale, gift, exchange or otherwise, any part of the immovable property of the minor or lease any part of such property for a term exceeding five years or for a term extending more than one year beyond the date on which the minor will attain majority. Any disposal of immovable property by a natural guardian, in contravention of Sub-section (1) or Sub-section (2), is voidable at the instance of the minor or any person claiming on behalf of the minor. Section 12 provides that where a minor has an undivided interest in the joint family property and the property is under the management of an adult member of the family, no guardian shall be appointed for the minor in respect of such undivided interest: Provided that nothing in this Section shall be deemed to affect the jurisdiction of a High Court to appoint a guardian in respect of such interest.
9. With regard to the undivided interest of the Hindu minor in joint family property, the provisions afore called are beads of the same string and need be viewed in a single glimpse, simultaneously in conjunction with each other. Each provision, and in particular Section 8, cannot be viewed in isolation. If read together the intent of the legislature in this beneficial legislation becomes manifest. Ordinarily the law does not envisage a natural guardian of the undivided interest of a Hindu minor in joint family property. The natural guardian of the property of a Hindu Minor, other than the undivided interest in joint family property, is alone contemplated Under Section 8, whereunder his powers and duties are defined. Section 12 carves out an exception to the rule that should there be no adult member of the joint family in management of the joint family property, in which the minor has an undivided interest, a guardian may be appointed; but ordinarily no guardian shall be appointed for such undivided interest of the minor. The adult member of the family in the management of the Joint Hindu Family property may be a male or a female, not necessarily the karta. The power of the High Court otherwise to appoint a guardian, in situations justifying, has been preserved. This is the legislative scheme on the subject. Under Section 8 a natural guardian of the property of the Hindu minor before he disposes of any immovable property of the minor, must seek permission of the court. But since there need be no natural guardian for the minor's undivided interest in the joint family property, as provided Under Sections 6 and 12 of the Act, the previous permission of the Court Under Section 8 for disposing of the undivided interest of the minor in the joint family property is not required. The joint hindu family by itself is a legal entity capable of acting through its karta and other adult members of the family in management of the joint hindu family property. Thus Section 8 in view of the express terms of Section 6 and 12 would not be applicable where a Joint Hindu Family property is sold/disposed of by the Karta involving an undivided interest of the minor in the said Joint Hindu Family property. The question posed at the out set therefore is so answered.'
The said ratio of the Apex Court and the principles laid down therein squarely applies to the case on hand and governs the point now raised on the ground of absence of sanction in respect of the minor 4th defendant's share, against the appellants. The learned single Judge could not therefore be considered to have committed any error warranting our interference in this appeal.
10. The appeal, therefore, fails and shall stand dismissed. No costs. Consequently C.M.P.No. 3833 of 1994 is dismissed.