| Citation | 36 Ind Cas 921, (1916) 31 MLJ 575 |
| Date of Judgment | 5 April, 1916 |
| Court | Madras High Court |
| Plaintiff | Raghava Chariar |
| Defendant | Srinivara |
| Bench | The Honourable Mr. Justice Abdur Rahim & The Honourable Mr. Justice Srinivasa Aiyangara |
| Referred | Section 11 of Indian Contract Act 1872, Section 6,7,54,55(5)(a) of Transfer of property Act 1882 |
FACTS OF THE CASE
On 23rd March, 1903, the Plaintiff who was a minor at that time, entered into a mortgage with the Defendant(major). The mortgage was executed for money as security which was already paid in advance at the time of mortgage, to the mortgagor (Defendant) but at that time the Plaintiff (mortgagee) was infant. The part of obligation of plaintiff was duly performed and extended the desired mortgaged monetary amount to the mortgagor. The Defendant refused to perform his part of obligation despite the agreement was duly honored by the mortgagee. The total sum of Rs. 1100 was due on the mortgage and the suit was filed for the recovery of this monetary amount.
ISSUES
Whether a mortgage executed in favor of a minor who has advanced the whole of the mortgage money is enforceable by him or by any other person on his behalf.
ARGUMENTS
It was argued that a transfer of Lordships and property is called mortgage and under section 7 of the Transfer of Property Act persons competent to transfer property are the ones who are also competent to contract under the Indian Contract Act. Which means that a minor is not competent to contract. The contentions were raised that at the time of mortgage the plaintiff was infant. An infant is not competent to contract, also the contract thus formed is void or voidable under the Indian Contract Act. The person who is incompetent to contract is also incompetent to transfer property. Moreover, the defendant side also argued that there is incompetency in case if guardian of the minor binds him by a contract for sale of immovable property.
From the plaintiff’s side, it was argued that a minor is competent for the transfer of property under section 6 of The Transfer of Property Act. Which states that No transfer can be made to a person legally disqualified to be transferee. A minor is not a legally disqualified person to be a transferee, so a property can be transferred to him.
JUDGEMENT
It was held that the defendant is liable to perform his part of obligation as the contract so entered is enforceable considering the fact that the plaintiff has already performed his part of obligation at the time when the contract was formed. Moreover, the consideration for the mortgage was also paid by the plaintiff was the monetary amount paid in advanced. It was held that in case of transfer of property, the consent to pay the rent or the action of agreeing to make the payment is the essential in the contract. As this was present in this particular case, the defendant was held liable to honor the legally enforceable contract.
REFERENCES
This Article is written by Palak Kumari of Maharaja Agrasen Institute of Management Studies, Intern at Legal Vidhiya.
