1. This appeal arises out of a suit for specific performance of a contract for sale of immovable property. The plaintiff in the plaint claimed also damages in the alternative. The defendants, Nathu and Nand Lal, are the minor sons of one Bisauri. Their mother and guardian, Musammat Des Rani, entered into an agreement for sale of certain property to the plaintiff. The purchase money, i.e., Rs. 364-12-6, was the amount due on a mortgage which was executed by the father of the defendants in favour of the plaintiff. The sale was sanctioned by the Collector and the sale-deed was drawn up and executed on behalf of the minor defendants by Musammat Des Rani. She subsequently repudiated the transaction and refused to have the deed registered. No steps were taken under the Registration Act for the compulsory registration of the document, and the time for doing so was allowed to elapse. The plaintiff instituted the suit out of which this appeal has arisen for, as we have said, specific performance of the contract.
2. The Court of first instance by its decree ordered that the plaintiff's suit for registration of the deed of sale, and for possession of the property under it be decreed with costs, and, in case of default, that the plaintiff should have a decree against the defendants and their property for the price of the property and interest thereon.
3. An appeal was preferred by the defendants which came before the Subordinate Judge of Jhansi. He modified the decree of the Court below and directed that the order for registration of the sale be set aside and a decree be passed for the principal amount due to the plaintiff and interest and declared that that amount should be a charge on the property in dispute.
4. The plaintiff has now preferred this second appeal and his grounds of appeal are that the substantial relief sought by him was the specific performance of the contract for sale and for possession of the property. We see no answer to this appeal. No defence to the action was disclosed by the defendants and in view of all the facts the Court of first instance, as well as the lower appellate Court ought, in our opinion, to have granted a decree for specific performance. The Court of first instance was wrong in passing an order for registration of the sale-deed which was executed by the guardian of defendants, in view of the provisions of the Registration Act. But it appears to us that the Court has jurisdiction to direct specific performance of the contract and to require that the defendants should do all necessary acts for the purpose of fulfilling the obligation into which through their guardian they had entered, and that the plaintiff is entitled to have a fresh sale-deed executed by all necessary parties and to have the document so executed registered. We have support for this in the ruling in Chinna Krisna Reddi v. Dorasami Reddi 20 M. 19. In that case the defendant agreed to sell certain laud to the plaintiff and executed a sale-deed in favour of the plaintiff but subsequently, after obtaining possession of the document before registration, suppressed it and the document was not registered. It was held that the plaintiff was entitled to enforce the specific performance of the contract by the execution and registration of a fresh document. We accordingly allow the appeal. We set aside the decrees of both the lower Courts and give a decree to the plaintiff for specific performance of the agreement in the plaint mentioned for sale of a 4 annas share in mauza Lalpura and for execution by the defendants, of a sale-deed thereof and for the due registration of the same, and we direct that upon such execution the possession of the property be delivered to the plaintiff. The plaintiff will receive his costs in all Courts including fees in this Court on the higher scale.
Comments