Suraj Bhan v. Dharmender and Ors

IN T

Suraj Bhan

Dharmender and

CORAM: HO

Present: Mr

Mr

MANDEEP PA

1.

appellant/plainti

16.11.2015 pass First Appellate learned trial Cou the decree accor FACTUAL BACK

2.

agreement to s headnote of the

3.

in possession of total sale consi THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJ

AT CHANDIG

RS

Re

Pro

VERSUS d Others

ON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MAND r. Sumit Sangwan, Advocate for t r. Ajay Vijarania, Advocate for th ANNU, J e present Regular Second A iff Suraj Bhan, challenging sed by the learned Additional Di Court partly allowed the app urt to the extent of the share of rdingly. KGROUND e appellant/plaintiff filed a sui ell dated 18.09.2006 regarding plaint. e case of the plaintiff was that d f the suit property. They entered ideration of ₹3,50,000, which

JAB AND HARYANA GARH SA-3276-2016 (O&M) served on: 13.08.2025 onounced on:18.08.2025

.....Appellant

.....Respondents DEEP PANNU the appellant. he respondents. Appeal has been filed by the judgment and decree da istrict Judge, Bhiwani, whereby peal, reversed the findings of the minor defendant, and modif it for specific performance of g the suit land as detailed in defendants No. 1 to 3 were own into the said agreement to sell fo was paid in full by the plaint

ated fied f an ners or a

Defendant No. behalf was recei

4.

De and 4 contested further contende his minor son/de

5.

Fro the learned trial

¶1an

¶2spe pla

¶3suit

4.

5. FINDINGS OF

6.

to be a valid do of the plaintiff. on behalf of his attained majority repudiated the a The trial court tr 3, Brijesh, was a minor at that ived by his father, defendant No. fendant No. 1 was proceeded e the suit, alleging that the agreem ed that defendant No. 4 was not efendant No.3. om the pleadings of the parties, th Court:- Whether on 18.09.2006, the agreement to sell the suit land in If issue no.1 is proved, w ecific enforcement of the agreem aint? OPP Whether the plaintiff has no t? OPD Whether the suit is not maint Relief. THE TRIAL COURT e learned trial Court decreed the ocument, recording findings of r It was observed that defendant s minor son, and during the pe y. Despite being aware of the lit agreement nor initiated any lega reated his conduct as ratification

time, and the consideration on . 4. ex parte, whereas defendants No ment was false and fabricated. Th competent to deal with the share he following issues were framed defendants No.1 to 3 had execu n favour of the plaintiff? OPP whether the plaintiff is entitled ment in question, as prayed for in o cause of action to file the pres tainable in the present form? OP e suit, holding the agreement to readiness and willingness in fav No. 4 had executed the agreem endency of the suit, the said mi tigation for several years, he neit al proceedings to have it cancell n of his father's act.

his o. 2 hey e of d by uted d to sent D sell vour ment ther

FIRST APPELLA

7.

In a held that it is a and any such ag the appellate co the extent of the and not against modified accord SUBMISSIONS O

8.

Lea into on behalf o attaining majori suit. A guardian and in the prese He has relied [2001(6) SCC 1

9.

Lea that the father h minor's share w initio as agains specifically ple unenforceable a FINDINGS

10.

I ha the parties and g ATE COURT'S FINDINGS appeal by defendants No. 2 and settled principle of law that a m greement has no sanctity or valid ourt held that the agreement cou e shares of the major defendants, the share of the minor, Brijesh dingly. OF COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES arned counsel for the appellant f a minor is not void ab initio bu ity, did not repudiate the agreem n's contract on behalf of a minor ent case, execution and receipt o upon Vishwambhar Vs. Laxm 63]. arned counsel for the responde had no authority to execute an without prior permission of the st the minor. He has further eaded that the agreement w against him. ave considered the respective co gone through the record with the

3, the learned First Appellate Co minor cannot enter into a contr dity in the eyes of law. According uld be specifically enforced only , namely Dharminder and Somve h. The decree of the trial court w argued that the agreement ente ut merely voidable. The minor, a ment but elected to continue with r, if for his benefit, can be bindi of consideration were duly prov minarayana (dead) through L ents, on the other hand, contend agreement to sell in respect of court. The agreement was void contended that defendant Brij was against his interest, he ontentions of the learned counsel able assistance.

ourt act, gly, y to eer, was ered fter ing, ved. LRs. ded d ab esh nce

11.

It i agreement. The court was requi admittedly neve

12.

Th Ghose, [(1903) minor is void ab

13.

In through his fath majority, did no objections in th issue is whethe voidable at the i

14.

In Privy Council h ratified even aft by or on behalf

15.

In Supreme Court guardian withou Minority & Gua initio, but voida The minor mus recover possessi s undisputed that Brijesh was m agreement itself stipulated that ired before executing the sale d er taken. he law on this point is well-settle 30 Cal 539 (PC)], it was held b initio. the present case, the agreemen her (claimed to be natural gua ot institute a separate suit to s he suit for specific performance er such an agreement is void a instance of the minor (as suggest Mohori Bibi v. Dharmodas Gh held that a contract by a mino ter attaining majority. It is furthe of a minor has no binding force Vishwambhar v. Laxminaray was dealing with alienation of ut prior permission of the Cour ardianship Act, 1956. It was held able at the instance of the minor t file a suit to set aside the alie ion.

minor at the time of execution of t prior permission of the compet deed on behalf of the minor, a s ed. In Mohori Bibee v. Dharmo d that a contract entered into b nt to sell was executed by a mi ardian). The minor, upon attain et aside the agreement, but rai e filed by the purchaser. The c ab initio (as per Mohori Bibi) ted in Vishwambhar). hose (1903) 30 Cal 539 (PC), or is void ab initio and cannot er held that any agreement execu in law qua minor. yan (2001) 6 SCC 163, Hon' f immovable property by a natu rt under Section 8(2) of the Hin d that such alienation is not void or any person claiming under h enation if he seeks to avoid it a

tent step das y a ning ised core ) or be uted 'ble ural ndu d ab him.

16.

per Mohori Bib no lawful guard contrary, as per guardian in cont it remains valid

17.

Thu contract, square unenforceable, w the guardian wi (supra) is valid

18.

In t need not file a performance sui

19.

In t must file a separ CONCLUSION

20.

governed by M entitled to resist separate suit.

21.

completed alie agreements to se ere is distinction between the tw i's case (supra) a contract execu dian) is void ab initio and no que r Vishwambhar's case (supra) a travention of Section 8(2) is not and enforceable. us, an agreement to sell execut ely falls under Mohori Bibi's whereas a sale deed/alienation o thout sanction under Section 8(2 until avoided by the minor. the case of a void contract (agre separate suit; he can simply res it). the case of a voidable alienation rate suit to set it aside, failing wh e agreement to sell in question, Mohori Bibi's case (supra) and t its enforcement in the specific e ratio in Vishwambhar v. L enations (sale deeds), not to ell.

wo in the nature of transaction. uted directly by a minor (or throu estion of setting aside arises. On an alienation executed by a natu t void, but voidable. Until set asi ted on behalf of a minor, bein 's case (supra) and is void a of immovable property executed 2) falls under Vishwambhar's c eement to sell by minor), the mi sist enforcement (e.g., in a spec n (sale deed by guardian), the mi hich the transaction stands. executed on behalf of the minor is void ab initio. The minor w c performance suit without filin Laxminarayan (supra) applies o mere executory contracts l

As ugh ural ide, ng a and d by case cific r, is was ng a to

22.

Thu alienations by n

23.

In v judgment and Accordingly, the

24.

Pen

August 18, 2025 tripti

Whethe

Whethe us, there is a clear distinction c atural guardians without sanction view of the above, I find no rea decree dated 16.11.2015 passe e present Regular Second Appea nding application(s), if any, also

er speaking/non-speaking : Speak er reportable

: Yes/N

contracts by minors are void, wh n are voidable ason to interfere with the impugn ed by the First Appellate Co al stands dismissed. stand disposed of. (MANDEEP PANNU) JUDGE king

hile ned