A contract entered into by a minor is void ab initio under Section 11 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, and cannot be enforced unless the minor is represented by a guardian.

ORDER :

Leave granted.

2. Heard Mr. B. Balaji, learned counsel appearing for the appellant. Also heard Mr. G. Sivabalamurugan, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

3. The appellant, was a minor (16+ years) at the time when the sale agreement dated 03.09.2007 (Annexure P-1) was executed with the respondents. Under the said agreement, the minor had agreed to purchase some immovable property. The sellers were given advance for the purchase of the property, as can be seen from the recital in the sale agreement.

4. The O.S. No. 924 of 2010 was filed by appellant- Krishnaveni (minor) through her mother (Gowri), seeking a direction to the defendants to perform their part of the contractual obligation, in terms of the sale agreement dated 03.09.2007. The defendants in the suit, who were the sellers in the sale agreement dated 03.09.2007, filed application under Order XII Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Code based on admission of PW1 Gowri (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 on the basis of such void sale agreement.

5. However, the learned II Additional Subordinate Judge at Tiruchirapalli, Tamil Nadu in his order dated 28.04.2017 (Annexure P-7) opined that the objections of the defendants can be considered during the trial of the suit and the same need not be considered as a preliminary issue and accordingly, the application filed by the defendants under Order XII Rule 6 of CPC, came to be dismissed.

6. The defendants then moved the Madurai Bench of the High Court of Madras by filing a Revision Petition. The learned Judge in the impugned order dated 02.01.2019 allowed the Revision Petition with the following order;

“3. The simple point projected by the Revision Petitioners is that even as per the admission made by P.W.1, when the suit agreement dated 03.09.2017 (sic 03.09.2007) was entered into, the plaintiff Krishnaveni was a minor. A minor is not competent to enter into an agreement. It is void as per Section 11 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. Therefore, the suit founded on the strength of such a void agreement is liable to be dismissed. The Court below declined to accept the said stand on the ground that a minor can be a beneficiary under an agreement.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the Respondent placed reliance on the decision of the Delhi High Court rendered on 15.09.2017 in RFA No. 788 of 2017 & CM Nos.33659- 61/2017(Bhupinder Kaur & Ors vs. Davindar Kaur & Ors). He also contended that grant of relief in terms of Order 12 Rule 6 of CPC is rather discretionary. He relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in (2015) 8 SCC 428 (Raveesh Chand Jain vs. Raj Rani Jain) and the one rendered on 18.12.2003 in Appeal (Civil) No. 1036 of 2000 & Appeal (Civil) No. 4770 of 2001 (K.Balakrishnan vs. K. Kamalam & Ors.)

5. I am of the view that as rightly contended by the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners, the case on hand is squarely covered by the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in (2015) 5 SCC 622 (Mathai Mathai vs. Joseph Mary Alias Mary Kutty Joseph and Ors. Following a privy council decision, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held in categorical terms that a contract to which a minor is a party is void ab initio. In this case, admittedly, the plaintiff Krishnaveni was not represented by her natural guardian. A copy of the said agreement has been enclosed in the typed set of papers. Even the stamp documents have been purchased only in the name of Krishnaveni. Her mother Gowri who was a special power agent for filing the suit had deposed that Krishnaveni was a minor on the date when the suit agreement was entered into.

6. Therefore, this Court has to necessarily hold that such a suit agreement is void. Such a void agreement cannot be enforced. In this view of the matter, the order impugned in this Civil Revision Petition is set aside. The Civil Revision Petition stands