JANARDHAN Vs. VISHWANATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BOTH Courts below have held that as the pro-note sued upon was executed by the defendant when he was a minor, the plaintiff cannot recover thereon. It is argued that the case falls under Section 65 of the Contract Act, and that as the contract did not become void until it was established that defendant was a minor at the time, the defendant is bound to make compensation. I am referred to Second Appeal No. 143 of 1924, decided by Hallifax, A.J.C., on the 6th March 1925. In my opinion the contract in the present case was void under Section 11 of the Contract Act. There can be no contract between parsons one of whom is incompetent to contract; and any contract made by a minor of this nature is void and not voidable. Section 65 of the Contract Act is based on there being a contract between competent parties and is inapplicable to a case where there is not and could not have been any contract at all. The leading case in this province is Mt. Muliabai v. Garud (1919) 15 N.L.R. 149, where it was laid down that a minor cannot in equity be forced to restore the amount of a loan taken by him on a void contract and that a contract made by a minor is nudum pactum ab initio. Following that ruling, it seems to me that the present case has been rightly disposed of. I dismiss this appeal with posts. Appellant will pay respondent's costs.