MOHAMMED LATIF Vs. ZAHOOR MOHAMMED AND SONS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEAD learned counsel for the parlies. The only point raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the learned lower appellate Court failed to take into account the fact that the execution of the agreement for the sale of the property by the present appellant has no effect in the eye of law as at the time of execution, he was minor aged about 14 or 15 years and was a school student and the agreement executed by the minor is void-ab-initio and is unenforceable in the eye of law. To support and prove the age of the appellant that he was minor at the relevant time, he produced a school certificate. It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the approach of the learned lower Court that the document should have been proved by calling the HEADmaster or other concerning persons of the school and as this was not done the age mentioned in the school certificate cannot be accepted to be true, was not correct. The school certificate is a public document and need no proof to prove its contents.

(2.) I have considered the contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant.