it Petition Civil No 824 of 1988
Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India VC Mahajan Gaurav Jain and Ms Abha Jain for the Petitioner
Anil Dev Singh I Makwana Rathin Das KR Nambiar Ms A Subhashini AM Khanvilkar AS Bhasme RK Mehta V Krishnamurthy SK Agnihotri AV Rangam Mahabir Singh and PK Pillai for the Respondents
The Order of the Court was delivered by MISRA J
This application under article 32 of the Consti tution is at the instance of an advocate by way of a public interest litigation asking for direction to the respondents for making provision of separate schools with vocational training facilities and separate hostels for children of prostitutes
Notice was issued not only to the original respondents but at the instance of the Court also to a11 the States and the Union Territories
Many of them have respond ed and affidavits have been filed by way of return to the rule nisi
Though Mr Mahajan for the petitioner has pleaded that separate schools and hostels be raised for the children of the prostitutes we are not inclined to accept the submis sion
Segregating prostitute children by locating separate schools and providing separate hostels in our opinion would not be in the interest of such children
It is said that prostitutes do not want to have children and ordinarily when children are born to them it is inspite of their desire not to rear children
But once such children are born to them it is in the interest of such children and of society at large that the children of prostitutes should be segre gated from their mothers and be allowed to mingle with others and become part of the society
In fact counsel appearing for several States have stated at the Bar the same way
We therefore reject the prayer for locating separate schools and hostels for children of the prostitutes
Children of prostitutes should however not be permit ted to live in inferno and the undesirable surroundings of prostitute homes
This 175 is particularly so for young girls whose body and mind are likely to be abused with growing age for being admitted into the profession of their mothers
While we do not accept the plea for separate hostels for prostitute children it is necessary that accommodation in hostels and other reformato ry homes should be adequately available to help segregation of these children from their mothers living in prostitute homes as soon as they are identified
Legislation has been brought to control prostitution
Prostitution has however been on the increase and what was once restricted to certain areas of human habitation has now spread into several localities
The problem has therefore become one of serious nature and requires considerable and effective attention
We are of the view that instead of disposing of this writ petition with a set of directions a Committee should be constituted to examine the material aspects of the prob lem and submit a report containing recommendations to the Court on the basis of which further orders can be made
We accordingly direct that a Committee for such purpose shall be set up and it shall examine the matter from various angles of the problem taking into consideration the differ ent laws relevant to the matter and place its report before the Court within eight weeks from now
The Committee shall consist of 1
Mr VC Mahajan Senior Advocate New Delhi
Mr RK Jain Senior Advocate New Delhi
Mr MN Shroff Advocate on Record He shall act as the New Delhi
convenor
Mr RK Mehta Advocate on Record New Delhi
Dr Deepa Das Women s Studies  Development Centre Chhatra Marg University of Delhi Delhi 110 007
176 6
Sarla Mudgal Kalyani 5030 Kalidas Marg Darya Ganj New Delhi 110 002
Krishna Mukherji All Bengal Women s Union Research  Development Committee 89 Elliott Road Calcutta 700 016
The Union of India in the Ministry of Welfare Depart ment of Women  Child Development is directed to deposit in this Court a sum of Rs20000 for the present within two weeks to meet the expenses
The matter shall be listed on 16th January 1990 Tues day for further orders after the report is received


Summary:
The appellant purchased the suit property by a regis tered sale deed dated 27th December 1950 for a considera tion of Rs7000
On 1st January 1951 the respondent executed a rent agreement in favour of the appellant ac knowledging her as landlady at Rs80 per month
The mother of the appellant died in 1963
In 1974 the respondent filed a suit against the appellant for conveyance of the suit property in his favour on the basis of a ya dast  alleged to have been written by the mother of the appellant on 24th December 1950 in his favour providing for conveyance of the property in his favour after paying the sale price of Rs7000 and Rs1000 for registration ex penses
This yadast  was however neither stamped regis tered nor attested
It was marked as exhibit A 11
The Trial Court decreed the respondent s suit relying on the yadast 
On appeal the Additional District Judge after detailed examination of all the facts involved in the case and the evidence of the parties came to the finding that the appel lant acquired title to the property on the basis of the sale deed which was a registered document in her favour and that the suit property was leased out to the respondent under a rent agreement and that as the mother of the appellant was not a party to the sale deed she had no right to agree o convey the property or to ask her daughter to convey the same in favour of the respondent
He also came to the con clusion that the Yadast was not a genuine document but a forged one which was just got up for the purposes of the suit
He accordingly allowed the appeal and held that the suit for specific performance was further barred as it was filed more than 20 years after the alleged Yadast  834 The High Court in Second Appeal however interfered with the findings of fact arrived at by the lower Appellate Court solely on the basis that the evidence of the scribe of the Yadast  was not discussed by the lower appellate Court and accordingly allowed the Second Appeal
In the Special Leave Petition to this Court it was contended on behalf of the appellant that the suit for specific performance of the contract could only be decreed against the executant of the contract provided the executant had a right to dispose of the property about which the suit was filed and that there was no question of law on the basis of which the High Court exercised jurisdiction under Section 100 C PC and interfered with the findings of fact
Allowing the appeal this Court HELD 1
Section 100 CPC clearly indicates that the High Court had the jurisdiction to interfere only when a substantial question of law is involved and even then it is expected that such a question shall be so framed although the court is not bound by that question as the proviso indicates
There may be some other substantial questions of law which may need decision and which can be so decided
838G H In the instant case the Single Judge of the High Court has chosen to interfere with the findings of fact solely on the basis of one ground that the evidence of the scribe of the Yadast  PW 2 was not discussed by the lower appellate court and its failure has affected the validity of the finding rendered by it
This was no substantial question of law much less a question of law on which the High Court could interfere with the findings of fact
At best the questions on which the High Court chose to interfere could be said to be questions of appreciation of evidence
837H 839F 2
The suit for specific performance of the contract could only be decreed against the executant of the contract provided the executant had a right to dispose of the proper ty about which the suit is filed
836H 837A In the instant case admittedly the mother of the appel lant who was alleged to have executed the Yadast  was not the owner of the property
Both the parties to the Yadast  were strangers to the sale deed and the sale deed does not refer to any one of them nor there is anything in the sale deed to indicate that it was not an out and out sale
837D 835