Contracts involving minors are voidable, and agreements lacking informed consent due to undue influence or coercion are rendered invalid.

JUDGMENT :

ANIL VERMA, J.

1.This first appeal has been preferred by appellant/defendant no. 1 under section 96 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908(in short CPC) being aggrieved by judgment and decree dated 25.2.2005 passed by 15^th Additional District Judge Indore in civil suit No. 2A/2004, whereby the learned trial court has decreed the suit in favour of respondent No.1/plaintiff and declared the registered sale deed dated 14.2.1990 (sale deeds No. 1A/1338/d and 1A/1340/d) as null and void and directed that defendant no.4 will make an entry in his record about sale deed as null and void in favour of plaintiff. It was also declared that defendant no. 1 has no right to obtain mutation order in his favour on the basis of above registered sale deed as null and void and the diversion order issued by defendant no. 5 in favour of defendant no. 1, the agreement dated 3.3.1997 and power of attorney dated 3.3.1987 are declared null and void. Decree of Permanent injunction has been issued against defendants no. 1 and 2 thereby restraining them from alienating the suit property and interfering in the possession of plaintiff.

2.Brief facts of the case are that originally land in question belongs to Bhagchand Khati whose son was Jayramji. Jayramji was married to Gendibai and out of their wedlock one child Brijlal born. Plaintiff No. 1 Guttu @ Ramprasad is son of Brijlal and plaintiff No. 2 Smt. Ayodhyabai and plaintiff No. 3 Smt. Dhapubai were wives of Brijlal. Brijlal has two daughters who were married and are alive. After death of Jayram the land was mutated in the name of his wife's Smt. Gendibai. At that time plaintiff no.1 Gattu was minor therefore, his name was recorded as in the revenue record through guardian. On 2.3.2007 an oral agreement to sale was executed between defendants no. 1 and 2 and plaintiff that defendant no.1 will purchase the suit land on consideration of Rs. 1,500,000/- per acre from plaintiff. At that time plaintiff no. 1 was minor and his mother Gendabai was 84 years old widow disable and illiterate villager lady. The defendants no. 1 and 2 pressurized them that if they do not execute sale deed in favour of defendants, then the possession of suit land will be forcibly taken by the government. The defendants no. 1 and 2 under influence have obtained signatures and thumb impression of plaintiffs and Smt. Gendabai on the agreement to sale and power of attorney and copies were not given to them. The defendant no. 1 by committing fraud got executed registered power of attorney from Gendibai in favour of defendant no. 2.Thereafter Gendibai had cancelled the power of attorney through cancellation deed dated 11.8.1988, intimation to this effect had published in newspapers also.

3.Plaintiff's case in further is that on 27.10.1989 respondent no. 1 has sent a notice through registered post to the plaintiffs and Smt. Gendabai by stating that he became sole owner of the suit land and plaintiffs are doing agricultural work on the suit land. Gendibai has been died on 13.10.1988. The period of agreement to sale has come to an end on 2.3.1990. In the year 1991, plaintiff no. 1 came to know that land in question was mutated in favour of defendant no.1 and defendant no. 2 Gopal Sharma on the basis of power of attorney has illegally executed registered sale deed in favour