A minor's contract is void and cannot be enforced against the minor, but sureties may be held liable for misrepresentation. Funds advanced for a minor's marriage are not considered necessaries under Section 68, Contract Act.

Puranik, J—The plaintiffs sued the defendants for recovery of Rs. 987. Their case is that defendant 1 Gulabohand with the other defendants as sureties sold to them a half share in a house in Seoni for a consideration of Rs. 600 on 5th November 1932 under a sale deed (Ex. P-l) arnd placed them in possession thereof after receiving Rs. 150 on the date of registration and Rs. 50 on 6th May 1932, the balance remaining in deposit with them; defendant 1 and his sureties represented to the plaintiffs that defendant 1 was a major when the sale deed was executed, and acting on that representation the plaintiffs parted with Rs. 200 and became the purchasers. The plaintiffs allowed defendant 1 to remain in possession of the house as their licensee, but taking advantage of his possession he sold the house to one Hukumchand on 7th April 1937, and it was then that the plaintiffs learnt on enquiry that defendant 1 was a minor on the date of the sale in their favour and that a false representation was made to them that he was a major. The plaintiffs now realizing that the sale in their favour was void claim Rs. 200 paid by them to defendant 1 together with damages which they suffered on account of the transaction falling through, from all the defendants in the case. They claim Rs. 200 paid by them, Rs. 287 interest on Rs. 200 at 2 per cent, per mensem as provided for in the sale deed by way of damages, and Rs. 500 on account of difference in the sale price and the present price of the house. Rs. 987 is the amount of the claim. The plaintiffs assert that Rs. 200 paid as consideration under the sale deed was paid to defendant 1 to meet his marriage expenses and that he is bound to refund the same under Section 68, Contract Act.

2. Defendant 1 admits that he was a minor on the date of the sale, but pleads that he thought he was a major and executed the sale deed under that belief. He wanted the plaintiffs to pay the balance and take possession, but they did not, with the result that he sold the house for Rs. 550 on 7th April 1937 to one Hukumchand. He admitted that he received Rs. 200 for his own marriage and pleaded that it cannot be regarded as a necessary of life under Section 68 and that the plaintiffs cannot recover the same on that ground. He also pleaded that the contract being void, the plaintiffs could not claim to recover anything under it. The sureties who are the other defendants in the case deny that they misrepresented the age of defendant 1 as above 18 and pleaded that they were not sureties for the defect in title and that as the original contract between the plaintiffs and defendant 1 was void, there could be no contract of suretyship regarding a void contract. They denied the damages claimed and stated that the claim was not leviable against them. It was also pleaded on behalf of defendant 1 that the plaintiffs' claim was barred by time.

3. On these facts the lower Court set forth the necessary points for determination and decreed the claim of the plaintiffs for Rs. 212 against the sureties only. The plaintiffs feeling themselves aggrieved have filed an application for revision (Civil Revision No. 869 of 1938), claiming a decree for the full amount claimed against all the defendants, while the surety Tekkilal (defendant 2) has filed an application for revision (Civil Revision No. 868 of 1938) claiming that there should be no decree against the sureties and that the plaintiffs' suit should have been dismissed against them also. This order will govern both these revision applications which were argued together before me as arising out of the same suit. The plaintiffs contend that the trial Court having rightly found that all the defendants represented defendant 1 to be a major, though he was a minor on the date of the sale, should have ordered the payment of Rs. 200 not only by the sureties but also by defendant 1 who actually received it for his own marriage. The plaintiffs also lay claim to this amount from defendant l's