Introduction:

In a recent ruling, the Supreme Court emphatically clarified the legal standing of contracts entered into by minors, asserting that such agreements are not enforceable under the law. The case involved a sale agreement executed by a minor seeking specific performance, a contention rejected by the High Court. The Supreme Court, through a bench comprising Justices Hrishikesh Roy and Prashant Kumar Mishra, affirmed the High Court’s decision, underscoring the void nature of contracts with minors.

Arguments:

The appellant, a minor, entered a sale agreement with the respondents for the purchase of immovable property. The sellers applied for an Order 12 Rule 6 judgment on admission, citing the admission by the appellant’s mother that the appellant was a minor at the time of the agreement. The Trial Court initially refused the application, directing the respondents to present their contentions during the trial. The High Court, however, allowed the revision application, asserting the void nature of contracts with minors.

Court’s Judgment:

The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision, reiterating the legal principle that contracts entered into by minors are void ab initio. The Court cited the Contract Act, 1872, emphasizing the necessity for parties to be competent to contract, with age of majority being a crucial condition for competency. The judgment further referenced Mathai Mathai vs. Joseph Mary Alias Marykutty Joseph (2015) 5 SCC 622, rendering previous judgments on the enforceability of contracts with minor obsolete.