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