MUNIA KONAN Vs. PERUMAL KONAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The facts found in this case are that certain immoveable property was purchased for the benefit of the plaintiff in the suit by one Ramaswami Konan, his maternal uncle, and that it was subsequently sold by the third defendant, the plaintiff s father, as if it belonged to the family of which he and the plaintiff were members. Defendants Nos. 1 and 2 claim under the sale by the third defendant. The contention on the merits in the Lower Courts was that the purchase in the name of the minor was really benami for the third defendant or the family, and that therefore the plaintiff has no exclusive right to the property, and the sale by the third defendant was valid.

(2.) On the finding of the District Court that the purchase was made by the maternal uncle for the benefit of the minor, the sale by the third defendant cannot be upheld and defendants Nos. 1 and 2 have no title. It is contended that on the finding that the sale was for the benefit of the minor, it must be held to be a void transaction as a minor is incompetent to purchase property. The answer to this is substantially what is given by the District Judge, viz., that the minor was not a contracting party in the transaction of purchase by Ramaswami Konan, although the minor became the beneficiary owner under the deed of purchase. This case is on all fours with Kulla Pandithan v. Ramayi Second Appeal No. 881 of 1909 decided by Munro and Sankaran Nair,JJ. In that case a person executed a deed of sale of certain property in the name of his wife, and when she sued for the recovery of the property, it was contended that the sale was void. The learned Judges answered this contention thus: "The decree is right, the contract being found to have been between the plaintiff s father (i.e., father of the wife) and the appellant (i.e., her husband)." We might be content to rest ourselves on the authority of this case, but out of deference to the arguments that have been urged on behalf of the appellant we shall state our reasons a little more fully.

(3.) According to the Indian Contract Act, a minor is incompetent to mate a contract. The judical committee of the Privy Council decided in Mohori Bibee v. Dharmodas Ghose (1903) I.L.R. 30 Calc. 539 (P.C.) that a contract by a minor must, according to the Contract Act, be regarded as void and not merely voidable. The case before their Lordships was one of a mortgage made by a minor. Of course a mortgage by a minor is a contract by him to pay a sum of money which he borrows on the security of certain property. Many transactions resulting in the creation of rights over property arise out of contracts; and when a minor enters into any such transactions where a contract by him is an essential condition preliminary to the transaction or contractnal obligations on his part flow from the transaction, it must be regarded as void.