Present : The Hon. Sir Joseph T. Hutohinson, Chief Justice, May 16,1910
and Mr. Justice Middleton.

WIJESOORIA v. IBRAHIMSA.

D. C, Kandy, 19,291.

Minor-Contract-Sale of immovable property-No sanction of Court obtained.

Although a minor cannot, as a general rule, bind himself by contract without the authority of his tutor, yet, when he has, falsely represented himself to be of full age, and has deceived the other contracting party by such representation, he will be held bound.

A sale of immovable property without the sanction of Court by a minor who represented himself to be of full age, was held not to be void under the circumstances of this case.

THE facts of this case are fully set out in the judgment of Hutchinson C.J.

A. St. V. Jayewardene, for the plaintiff, appellant.-Plaintiff was a minor at the date of the conveyance; the conveyance was executed without the sanction of Court, it is therefore void (Andris Appu v. Abanchi Appu,1 Perera v. Perera,2 Manuel Naide v. Adrian Hamys). There is no estoppel in this case, as the defendants were induced to purchase, not on any representation made by the plaintiff, but owing to the affidavit sworn by plaintiff's mother. Even if the plaintiff made a representation, no estoppel could arise, as the plaintiff was a minor at the time. An estoppel cannot be applied to alter the law of the land. Section 115 of the Evidence Ordinance does not apply to minors (Cababe on Estoppel 123, Dutt v. Ghose,4 Cannon v. Farmer 5).

Bawa, for the defendants, respondents.-Plaintiff should not be , allowed to take advantage of his own fraud. Section 115 of the Evidence Ordinance applies; and plaintiff is now estopped from saying that he was not of full age at the date of the execution of the deed.

Jayewardene, in reply.

[There was also an argument as to whether the law applicable to this case was the Kandyan Law or the Roman-Dutch Law.]

Cur. adv. vult.

Foot Notes:

1 (1902) 3 Br. 12.
2 (1902) 3 Br. 150
3 (1909) 12 N. L. R. 259..
4 26 Cal. 381.
5 6 3 Ex. 698.

HUTCHINSON C.J.-

is is an appeal by the plaintiff against the dismissal of his action. His claim in the action was for a declaration of his title to a piece of land which was conveyed to him in 1889, and of which he complains that the defendants have been unlawfully in possession for the last five or six years.

The defendants admitted that the land was conveyed to the plaintiff in 1889, but said that the plaintiff by deed dated April 4, 1901, sold and transferred it to Dona Catherina Hamine, through whom the added defendants claim. The original defendant was the agent of the added defendants to collect the rents from the property.

The plaintiff alleged that he was a minor at the date of his execution of the deed of 1901; the defendants denied this, but asserted that if he was a minor he is estopped from denying the validity of the deed by his conduct.

The issue whether the plaintiff was a minor on April 4, 1901, was decided in the affirmative; he was then in his twenty-first year, and did not attain majority until March 21, 1902.

The Judge finds that at the time of the execution of the deed the plaintiff was over twenty years of age, and that he understood English, and was well able to comprehend the effect of the deed. It is clear that the purchaser, a woman called Hamine, had some doubt as to his age, because an affidavit was sworn by his mother on the same day and attached to the deed affirming that the plaintiff was born in or about December, 1879, and so was then of full age. The plaintiff represented himself to the purchaser as being twenty-one years of age, and he received the consideration money himself. After he attained majority he took no steps for more than seven years to avoid the transfer, and did nothing while the purchaser and the subsequent purchasers built on the land and improved it. He now asks the Court to declare that his deed was a nullit