{"id":73278,"date":"2024-02-29T11:22:51","date_gmt":"2024-02-29T05:52:51","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/navimumbaihouses.com\/blog\/?p=73278"},"modified":"2024-02-29T12:43:54","modified_gmt":"2024-02-29T07:13:54","slug":"sale-contract-with-minor","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/navimumbaihouses.com\/blog\/finance-legal\/sale-contract-with-minor\/","title":{"rendered":"Sale Contract with Minor not Valid, Says Supreme Court"},"content":{"rendered":"

Sale Contract with Minor<\/strong> : The law does not recognize contracts that children enter into, as the Supreme Court has emphasized. This statement was made by the Supreme Court in support of a ruling of the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court (HC), which state that a sale agreement form by a minor lack legal validity.<\/p>\n

According to the terms of the Contract Act, 1872, an agreement cannot form a contract if the parties are not competent to contract. The legal requirement for competency is reaching the age of majority.<\/p>\n

On February 15, 2024, the High Court declared in the Krishnaveni versus MA Shagul Hameed & Another case that a minor lack the capacity to engage into a contract. According to Indian Contract Act, 1872, Section 11, it is null and void. As a result, the lawsuit that is based on the validity of this null agreement may be drop. The lower court rejected the aforementioned position on the grounds that a minor may benefit from an agreement.<\/p>\n

The Supreme Court state, “There is no dispute on the contention raise by the defendants in the suit that the appellant was a minor at the time of the said agreement date 03.09.2007,” dismissing Krishnaveni’s plea. Therefore, the High Court correctly determine that the transaction involving the minor was null and void.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\n

Are You Searching flat for sale in Belapur?<\/strong><\/p>\n

\n

<\/h2>\n

Krishnaveni v. MA Shagul Hameed & an Additional Matter<\/strong><\/h2>\n

 <\/p>\n

When the sale agreement date 03.09.2007 was execute with the respondents, the appellant Krishnaveni was not yet 16 years of age. The youngster had committe to buying certain real estate under the terms of the aforemention agreement. For the purchase of the property, an advance was grant to the sellers. Krishnaveni, via her mother, file a plea in 2010 asking the court to order the defendants to fulfill their half of the bargain under the terms of the sale agreement.<\/p>\n

The appellant’s mother, Gowri, admitted that the appellant was a minor at the time of the sale agreement and that, as a result, no claim for specific performance can lie on the basis of such void sale agreement. The defendants in the suit, who were the sellers in the sale agreement, filed two applications under Order XII Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Code.<\/p>\n

However, the additional subordinate judge in Tiruchirapalli, Tamil Nadu, decide in an order date April 2017 that the defendants’ objections could be taken into account during the suit’s trial and did not have to be taken into consideration as a preliminary matter. As a result, the defendants’ application was dismiss.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Top 3 Spacious & Affordable flats available for rent in kharghar<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n