A contract that is not binding on one of the parties due to his minority may still be specifically enforced against the other parties, provided that the plaintiff relinquishes his claim to further performance and compensation in respect of the minor's share.

P. N. MOOKERJEE, J.

( 1 ) A short point requires consideration in the Second 'appeal. The point is not altogether free from difficulty but it appears to be covered by certain decisions of this Court, to which, reference will be made in the course of this judgment, and, giving the matter my best consideration, I have myself reached the same conclusion as found favour with the learned Judges on these previous occasions, and, as that conclusion favours the plaintiff-respondent, this appeal must eventually fail.

( 2 ) THE appeal arises out of a suit for specific performance of a contract to settle the suit lands at an annual rental of Rs. 70/- per annum on re ceipt of a selami of Rs. 700/ -. The suit lands belonged to Defendants Nos. 1 to 4. On 28th Ashar, 1364, B. S. , Defendant No. 5 Nibaran Chakrabarty who was an officer of Defendants Nos. 1 to 4, under due authority from them, accepted the plaintiff's offer to take settlement , of the suit lands on the above terms arid received from him a sum of Rs. 100/- towards the selami. This was followed' by payment of the balance selami of Rs. 600/- on 3rd Sraban following, when a further- sum of Rs. 40/- was also paid by the plaintiff to Nibaran towards costs of the necessary document of lease. This document was to be registered on 25th Bhadra 1354 B. S. but the defendants Nos. 1 to 4 refused to register it on the plea that defendants Nos. 6 and 7 were willing to take the lease for- a much higher consideration. The present suit was brought - on 20th September, 1947, corresponding to early Aswin 1354 B. S. Defendants Nos. 6 and 7 were sub sequently impleaded on the allegation that, during the pendency of the suit, they had obtained a docu ment of lease from defendants Nos. 1 to 4 in res pect of the disputed property with full knowledge of the said defendants' contract to settle the same with the plaintiff.

( 3 ) THE suit was contested by defendants Nos. 1 to 4 and defendants Nos. 6 and 7 and their principal defence was that there was no contract with the plaintiff, as alleged in the plaint, that defendant No. 5 Nibaran had no authority to enter into any such contract, that the story of payment or payments narrated in the plaint, was false, that defendant No. 2 was a minor and no specific performance would lie against him, the alleged contract not being binding upon him, and on that ground tlie entire suit would fail as the alleged contract could not be specifically enforced in part and that defendants Nos. 6 and 7 were bona fide transferees for valuable consideration without notice and were entitled to protection as such,

( 4 ) THE Courts below have concurrently Overruled the major defences to the suit but, having found that defendant No. 2 was a minor and the plaintiff's contract was not binding upon him the said minor defendant No. 2, they have refused specific performance in respect of his one-fourth share and have granted the plaintiff a decree for Specific performance of the contract of lease in respect of three-fourths of the suit property at the full stipulated rental of Rs. 70/- per annum and without any abatement either in respect of rent or in respect of the selami money. This they have apparently done under the last part or the proviso of Section 15 of the Specific Relief Act.

( 5 ) UPON the concurrent findings of fact of the two Courts below, the only point that arises for consideration is, whether in the events which have happened, the plaintiff is in law entitled to any decree for specific performance. The appellants argue that, in view of the fact that defendant No. 2 was a minor at the relevant time and the contract so far as he is concerned, has been held to be not binding and not enforceable in law, specific performance of the contract as against the remaining defendants Nos. 1, 3 and 4 cannot be decreed. For this argument reliance has been placed in particular upon the Privy Council case of Graham v. Krishna Chunder Dey, 52 Ind App 90: (AIR 1925 PC 45) (A), and the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document