The Supreme Court reiterated that the contract entered by the minor is not enforceable under law."There is no dispute on the contention raised by the defendants in the suit that the appellant was a minor at the time of the said agreement dated 03.09.2007. Therefore, such contract with a minor, was rightly found to be a void contract by the High Court.", the Bench Comprising Justices...
The Supreme Court reiterated that the contract entered by the minor is not enforceable under law.
"There is no dispute on the contention raised by the defendants in the suit that the appellant was a minor at the time of the said agreement dated 03.09.2007. Therefore, such contract with a minor, was rightly found to be a void contract by the High Court.", the Bench Comprising Justices Hrishikesh Roy and Prashant Kumar Mishra said while affirming the decision of the High Court which held the sale agreement entered by the minor to be void.
The sale deed was executed between the appellant (minor) and the respondents (sellers). Under the said agreement, the minor had agreed to purchase some immovable property. The sellers were given an advance for the purchase of the property.
The minor through her mother sought direction from the trial court to the sellers to perform their part of the contractual obligation.
The sellers, however, applied for Order 12 Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Judgment on admission) based on the admission of the appellant's mother that the appellant was a minor at the time of the sale agreement dated 03.09.2007 and therefore, no claim for specific performance can lie based on such void sale agreement.
The Trial Court, however, refused to entertain the application of the respondent's seller and asked the respondents to raise their contentions during the trial.
Against the trial court decision, the respondent seller preferred a revision before the High Court. The High Court allowed the revision application holding that that a contract to which a minor is a party is void ab initio, thus the agreement to sale entered by the minor was held to be void.
Ultimately, the minor approached the Supreme Court against the High Court's order to contend that a contract in favour of a minor is enforceable and is not void.
Negating such contention, the Supreme Court held that the parties must be competent to contract, and the contract is not enforceable under the law if it is executed by a minor at the time of entering into a contract.
"As per the Contract Act, 1872 it is clearly stated that for an agreement to become a contract, the parties must be competent to contract, wherein age of majority is a condition for competency. A deed of mortgage is a contract and we cannot hold that a mortgage in the name of a minor is valid, simply because it is in the interest of the minor unless she is represented by her natural guardian or guardian appointed by the court.", observed the Supreme Court in Mathai Mathai vs. Joseph Mary Alias Marykutty Joseph (2015) 5 SCC 622.
"In view of the decision in Mathai Mathai (supra), the judgments in Raghava Chariar (supra) and Thakur Das (supra) are no longer good law, and the II Additional Subordinate Judge's (28.04.2017) reliance on the aforesaid decisions to hold that the contract in favour of the minor is enforceable is misconceived.", the Supreme Court said.
The Supreme Court found no infirmity with the view taken by the High Court. The appeal preferred by the minor is accordingly dismissed.
Case Details: KRISHNAVENI VERSUS M.A. SHAGUL HAMEED & ANR., CIVIL APPEAL NO. 002591 / 2024
Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 165