- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Babu Ram v. Saed-Un-Nissa
Factual and Procedural Background
Musammat Said-un-nissa (plaintiff No. 1) was mother and certificated guardian of plaintiffs Nos. 2–6. Some of their property, formerly belonging to Sultan-ul-Haq (deceased husband/father), was under attachment and advertised for sale in execution of a decree against Sultan-ul-Haq. The mother sought and obtained appointment as certificated guardian (29 July 1911) in order to sell the property privately. On 2 September 1911 Babu Ram applied for leave to purchase the property for Rs. 5,000. The District Judge ordered that the applicant, plaintiff No. 1, was allowed to sell the shops for at least Rs. 5,000 to Babu Ram or anyone offering a higher price and directed that a draft deed be filed for court approval (order dated 15 September 1911). A draft deed was filed and approved by the District Judge on 31 October 1911. The deed showed the two major plaintiffs agreeing to sell their shares and Musammat Said-un-nissa contracting as guardian of the minors to sell theirs. The lower court found that this draft amounted to acceptance of Babu Ram's offer and that acceptance had been communicated to him. Babu Ram failed to perform; the property was sold at auction for less than Rs. 5,000. Plaintiffs sued to recover the difference as damages for breach of contract. The first court decreed recovery except Rs. 250 (claimed as auction costs) as too remote. On appeal and cross-objection, the District Judge dismissed the appeal but allowed the cross-objection concerning the Rs. 250. The matter was before the present court which dismissed the appeal with costs.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether there was a complete and enforceable contract between Babu Ram and the plaintiffs (including the guardian acting for minors).
- Whether the rule in Mir Sarwarjan v. Fahhruddin Mahomed Chowdhuri (as to a manager binding a minor in purchase of immovable property) prevented the certificated guardian from making a valid sale on behalf of the minors.
- Whether the lower court should have disallowed the Rs. 250 claimed as auction costs (i.e., whether that item of damage was too remote).
Arguments of the Parties
Arguments Presented
- It was argued that there was no complete contract between Babu Ram and Said-un-nissa.
- Reliance was placed on Mir Sarwarjan v. Fahhruddin Mahomed Chowdhuri to contend that the plaintiff could not validly contract for sale of immovable property on behalf of the minors.
- It was objected that the lower court should not have allowed Rs. 250 as an item of damages (auction costs) as being too remote.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Mir Sarwarjan v. Fahhruddin Mahomed Chowdhuri (I.L.R. 39 Calcutta) | The manager (in that case) could not bind the minor or the minor's estate by a contract for purchase of immovable property; absence of mutuality; a minor who had attained majority at the date of suit could not claim specific performance. It was noted that in that case it was not shown that the manager was a certificated guardian or had obtained court sanction under section 29 of the Guardians and Wards Act. | The court held the Privy Council ruling did not apply to the present facts because here the contract was entered into by a certificated guardian after receipt of the court's sanction; the guardian's powers are regulated by statute (Guardians and Wards Act), and the present suit is for damages for breach of such a contract. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court accepted the finding of the learned District Judge that a complete contract existed (the draft deed filed and approved amounted to acceptance communicated to Babu Ram). The court distinguished the Privy Council decision in Mir Sarwarjan on its facts: in that case the person contracting was a manager who had not been shown to be a certificated guardian nor to have obtained court sanction under section 29 of the Guardians and Wards Act; hence that ruling did not address contracts entered into by certificated guardians acting with court sanction. The court observed that a certificated guardian's powers are defined by statute (the Guardians and Wards Act), and in the present case the certificated guardian had the court's sanction before entering into the contract. On the objection concerning Rs. 250, the court agreed with the lower court's reasoning and upheld allowance of that item. For these reasons the appeal was dismissed with costs.
Holding and Implications
Appeal dismissed.
Direct effect: The decree in favour of the plaintiffs was upheld, including allowance of the Rs. 250 item; the appeal was dismissed with costs. The opinion confines its decision to the facts (certificated guardian acting with court sanction) and does not purport to lay down a broader departure from existing authority beyond distinguishing the cited Privy Council ruling on the facts.
Ryves and Lyle, JJ.:— Musammat Said-un-nissa, plaintiff No. 1, is the mother of the plaintiffs Nos. 2-6. Of these, Zia-ul-Islam was a major and the jest were minors. Some property belonging to them was under attachment and had been advertized for sale in execution of a decree obtained against Sultan-ul-Haq, the deceased husband of Musammat Said-un-nissa and the father of the remaining plaintiffs. The mother was anxious to sell the property by private contract and applied to the District Judge to be appointed a certificated guardian of her minor sons. This application was granted on the 29th of July, 1911. On the 2nd of September, 1911, Babu Ram applied to the court for leave to purchase the property for Rs. 5,000. The Judge passed an order that “the applicant, plaintiff No. 1, is allowed to sell the shops at least for Rs. 5,000 to Babu Ram or anyone else who may offer a higher price. The draft of the deed should be filed for the approval of the court.” This order was passed on the 15th of “September, 1911. Subsequently & draft deed was prepared and was filed by the plaintiffs in the District Judge's court and the District Judge approved of that draft on the 31st of October. In that deed, the two major plaintiffs agreed to execute a sale-deed of their own shares, while Musammat Said-un-nissa entered into a similar contract as guardian of the minors for the sale of their shares in the property. This draft must be considered as an acceptance by the plaintiff of Babu Ram's offer to purchase the property for Rs. 5,000, and this acceptance, as found by the lower court, was duly communicated to Babu Ram. Subsequently, Babu Ram failed to carry out the contract and, in the result, the property was sold by auction and realized less than Rs. 5,000. This suit was brought to recover the difference between what was realized and the sum of Rs. 5,000 which Babu Ram contracted to pay for it, by way of damages for breach of contract. The first court decreed the suit with the exception of Rs. 250, which sum was claimed as costs involved in the auction-sale, on the ground that the alleged damage on this head was too remote. There was an appeal and a cross-objection before the learned District Judge. He dismissed the appeal, but allowed the cross-objection with reference to this sum of Rs. 250.
Before us it has been argued, first, that there was no complete contract between Babu Ram on the one hand and the plaintiff, Said-un-nissa, on the other. As we have already said, we have a finding of the learned District Judge on this point which is conclusive. It was then argued on the authority of Mir Sarwarjan v. Fahhruddin Mahomed Chowdhuri that the plaintiff could not make a valid contract for sale of this immovable property on behalf of the minors. In the case in I.L.R, 39 Calcutta, what was laid down was that the manager, with whom their Lordships were then concerned, could not bind the minor or the minor's estate by a contract for purchase of immovable property, and that, as the minor was not bound by the contract, there was no mutuality, and that the minor, who had attained majority a the date of suit, could not claim specific performance. It was not shown in that case that the manager was the certificated guardian of the minor, and, even if he was, that he had obtained sanction of the court under section 29 of the Guardians and Wards Act to enter into a contract on behalf of the minor. A certificated guardian's powers are regulated and defined by Statute, namely, the Guardians and Wards Act. In the present case, the contract was entered into by a certificated guardian after receipt of the Court's sanction and the suit is for damages for breach of a contract so entered into. In our opinion the Privy Council ruling does not apply to the facts of the present case. We do not think the Privy Council ruling applies to guardians appointed by Statute, such as the Guardians and Wards Act or the various Court of Wards Acts. The third objection taken is that the lower court should should not have allowed the item of Rs. 250. In our opinion, for the reasons given by the lower court, its decree was justified. We dismiss the appeal with costs.
Appeal dismissed.
Alert