- (1.) The short question that arises for consideration in this regular second appeal of the defendant is as to whether the agreement to sell the plaintiff-minors' property entered into by their father Sadhu Singh with the defendant-appellant on 24-10-1967, and in pursuance of which the actual possession of the land was delivered to the defendant-appellant, was or was not in the nature of a personal covenant and thus not binding upon the plaintiff-minors in view of the provisions of sub-section (1) of Section 8 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, hereinafter referred to as the Act.
(2.) The relevant provisions of S. 8 of the Act are in the following terms: ''8.(1) 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 minor or for the realization, protection or benefit of the minor's estate; but the guardian ran in no case bind the minor by a personal covenant. (2) The natural guardian shall not, without previous permission of the Court,-- (a) mortgage or charge, or transfer by sale, gift, exchange or otherwise any part of the immovable property of the minor; or (b) 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, (3) Any disposal of immovable property by a natural guardian in contravention of, sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) is void able at the instance of the minor or any person claiming under him. xxxx xxx xxx xxxx"
(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the provision of sub-section (1) of Section 8 of the Act did not preclude the natural guardian of the minors from entering into a contract on behalf of the minors for their benefits and, therefore, the crux of the problem would be that in case the contract so entered into on behalf of the minors by the natural guardian was for their benefit, then such a contract would be enforceable against the minors if there had been part- performance of the contract for to such a contract the provisions of S. 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, would be clearly attracted. Learned counsel for the appellant sought to underpin his aforesaid submission with the ratio of the decision of the Privy Council reported in Subramanyam v. Subba Rao, AIR 1948 PC 95, followed in Linga Reddy v. Ramachandrappa, AIR 1971 Mys 194 and Piru Charanpal v. Sunilmoy Nerno, AIR 1973 Cal 1 (FB).;