A minor can ratify an agreement if he attains majority by the time of executing the compromise, and claims of fraud must be substantiated to overturn such agreements.

JUDGMENT :

Pankaj Jain, J.

Defendant is in revision aggrieved of order dated 09.10.2017 (Annexure P-8) passed by Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Ferozepur Jhirka, whereby the application filed by petitioner/defendant for setting aside Judgment and Decree dated 09.04.2014 (Annexure P-4) passed by Trial Court on the basis of compromise, has been dismissed.

2. For convenience, the parties are being referred to by their original position in the suit i.e. the appellant as defendant and the respondent as plaintiff.

3. Plaintiff filed suit for possession by way of specific performance of an agreement to sell dated 11.01.2012 qua agricultural land admeasuring 3 Kanal 8 Marla. Plaintiff claimed that defendant agreed to sell suit land in his favour for a valuable consideration of Rs.7 lakh. The earnest money of Rs.6,75,000/- was paid by the plaintiff which was accepted by the defendant. Defendant agreed to execute the registered sale deed in favour of plaintiff on or before 10.01.2013. Plaintiff claimed that on the stipulated date the plaintiff remained present in the office of Sub-Registrar, Punhana with the requisite amount but defendant failed to turn up. Plaintiff got his affidavit attested by the Sub-Registrar recording his presence and always remained ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. Plaintiff further claimed that he is still ready and willing to perform his part and prayed that the defendant be directed to execute sale deed in his favour and accept the remaining sale consideration.

3.1. Suit was contested by defendant. It was claimed that agreement to sell propounded by plaintiff was the result of fraud, manipulation, misrepresentation and collusion of plaintiff with scribe, stamp vendor and attesting witnesses. Defendant further claimed that he being minor at the time of execution of agreement to sell, the same was not binding.

3.2. During the pendency of suit, parties compromised. On 25.02.2014, defendant appeared and got his statement recorded before the Trial Court. He placed on record compromise Ex.Cl. In terms of the compromise, suit was decreed vide Judgment and Decree dated 09.04.2014. Trial Court directed defendant to get the sale deed executed and registered in favour of plaintiff on receipt of balance sale consideration within a period of 2 months in terms of compromise. While decreeing the suit, the Trial Court recorded that in terms of compromise, the agreement propounded by plaintiff stands ratified.

3.3. A year later, defendant preferred instant application for setting aside Judgment and Decree dated 09.04.2014 passed on the basis of compromise. Defendant alleged forgery and cheating. It was claimed that defendant never signed compromise in terms of which suit was decreed. Being an illiterate, he was incapacitated from signing documents and he only can thumbmark the documents. Thus, pleading that the Compromise dated 25.02.2014 was result of fraud, defendant sought setting aside of decree dated 09.04.2014. It was further pleaded that findings recorded by Trial Court while decreeing the suit with respect to ratification of agreement also cannot be sustained as the agreement having been executed by minor defendant was void ab initio.

3.4. On the basis of pleadings, the Ld. Court of Additional Civil Judge framed following issues:-

1. Whether the Judgment and Decree dated 09.04.2014 is liable to be set aside on the grounds mentioned in the application? OPA

2. Whether th