A minor's contract is voidable, not void, and a minor can seek specific performance of a contract in his favor if the contract is one which it is within the competence of the guardian to enter into on his behalf so as to bind him by it, and, further, if it is for the benefit of the minor.

P. RAMACHANDRA RAJU, J.

( 1 ) IN this revision petition, the second defendant in O. S. No. 1094/85 on the file of the IV Assistant Judge, city Civil Court, Hyderabad is challenging an order made in I. A. 62/92 dated 28-2-1992, whereunder, the application filed by him under Order 8, Rule 9 C. P. C. seeking amendment of the written statement was dismissed by the learned IV Assistant Judge, City Civil Courts, Hyderabad.

( 2 ) THE respondent-plaintiff filed O. S. 1094/85 seeking specific performance of the agreement of sale dated 6-4-1973 executed by one C. Ramaswamy, the father of the petitioner, agreeing to sell 250 Sq. yards of site together with super structures bearing Municipal Nol-4-907/908 situated atbakaram, Hyderabad. As the said Ramaswamy did not co-operate in executing the sale deed, the suit was filed and as he died, pending the suit, his sons, the petitioner and his brother were brought on record as defendant Nos. 2 and 3. The evidence on the side of the respondent-plaintiff was closed as long back as on 31-7-1991 and since then, the matter was being dragged on some pretext or the other. The petitioner instead of getting ready with the evidence, filed an application on 30-1-1992 to permit him to file additional written statement to enable him to take the plea that the suit agreement between the respondent and his father is void on account of incapacity of the respondent, being a minor at the time of the agreement. It is also the contention of the petitioner that he could obtain a certificate of date of birth, as per his School Register, which shows that he was born on 2-4-1985 and as such, he was a minor at the time when the agreement was entered into and the agreement was void and unenforceable. The respondent denied the said allegation in his counter-affidavit and stated that the correct date of birth of the petitioner was shown in the plaint as 30 years when the suit was filed on 6-4-1985 and he has mentioned his ageas 35 years in his deposition whenhe was examined on 20-7-1990 and in the suit agreement (Ex. A-1) his age was wrongly typed as 38 years instead of 18 years. It is also stated that the School Certificate does not reflect his correct age and apart from that the petitioner has filed this application to drag on the proceedings and there is no reason why he could not file this application for all these years, though the suit agreement was filed along with the plaint as early as on 6-4-1985.

( 3 ) THE lower Court accepting the contention of the respondent that the suit was being adjourned from time to time for the evidence of the petitioner, instead of getting ready with the evidence, the petitioner obtained the School Certificate and came up with this petition and he did not explain in his affidavit as to why there was enormous delay in filing the present petition when the suit has been instituted on 6-04-1985, appending Ex. A-1, suit agreement and when the evidence of the respondent-plaintiff was recorded as early as on 20-07-1990 and consequently, he opined that the petition is devoid of merits and is intended to protract the proceedings. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner came up by way of this revision petition.

( 4 ) SRI M. V. R. NArasimhacharya, learned Counsel for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner should be permitted to file additional written statement in order to establish that the respondent was a minor on the date of the agreement and as such, the agreement is void and unenforceable. He further submits that theamendmentof pleadings should be liberally considered. Replaced reliance upon a decision reported in Mir Sarwarjan vs. Fakhruddin Mahomed Chowdhuri and submits that the minor cannot obtain specific performance of a contract on attaining majority inasmuch as he was a minor at the time when the contract was entered into and as such, the contract itself is void.

( 5 ) CONSIDERING a number of decisions, including the above decision, a division Bench of the Madras High Court re

Click Here to Read the rest of this document