(1.) IN this Full Bench case the question referred to us is as follows:
(2.) I have given careful consideration to the above arguments and perused the cases referred to by the learned advocates and a good many other cases also. In my opinion certain points are clear and well established. In the first place, it is quite clear that a minor 'has not the capacity to contract'. This is laid down in the Contract Act itself and is a rule of law as old as the mountains. It was reiterated very lucidly in the Privy Council case of 'Mohori Bibi v. Dharmodas Ghose',, 30 Ind App 114 (PC) and in this Court's case of 'Ramanna v. Mallappa',, 28 Deccan L R 557. A different view was taken in 'Fateh Chand v. Gulam Dastagli ',, 32 Deccan L R 445 and it was held That if the contract is for the benefit and advantage of the minor and he has completed his part of the contract and nothing further remained for him to do under the contract, he can enforce a contract made by him. Owing to these two divergent views the case was referred to a Full Bench vide 'Bhagwan Das v. Sheik Husain'., 39 Dec LR 110 -where all the five learned Judges of the Full Bench writing separate judgments unanimously preferred "Ramanna v. Mallappa',, 28 Deccan L R 557 and held that a minor cannot make a valid and enforceable contract, irrespective of the fact whether the contract was a completed and executed contract and was to his advantage and benefit or not. In view of this weight of authority the matter must be taken as precluded by authority.
(3.) WITH regard to the question referred to us. viz., 'Whether a minor can bring a suit for specific performance', the learned advocate for the appellant has based his argument largely upon The case of 'Mir Sarwarjan v. Fakruddin Mohd.',, 39 Ind App 1 (PC). There their Lordships of the Privy Council have laid down that: