- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Pathak Kali Charan Ram v. Ram Deni Ram
Factual and Procedural Background
The plaintiff filed suit seeking recovery of Rs. 125 by way of principal and Rs. 9-10-0 as interest. The money was raised by Defendant 2, who was a minor at the time, pursuant to an agreement with the plaintiff for the sale of certain land belonging to Defendant 2. Defendant 1, the major brother of Defendant 2, negotiated the contract, which was formalized in a deed dated 25th May 1915. The funds were raised to cover Defendant 2's marriage expenses. Defendant 2 married within a fortnight after receiving the money and applied it towards those expenses. The learned Munsif found these facts and granted the plaintiff a decree for the full claim amount. However, the lower appellate court reversed this decision, holding the contract void due to Defendant 2's minority and ruling that Section 68 of the Contract Act did not apply, thereby dismissing the plaintiff's suit. The present opinion arises from an appeal and a revision application against that dismissal.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether a second appeal lies in a suit cognizable by a Court of Small Causes where the claim is under Rs. 500.
- Whether Section 68 of the Contract Act applies to a minor who received money for necessaries suited to his condition of life, despite the contract for the sale of land being void due to minority.
- Whether the property of a minor is liable to reimburse a person who supplied necessaries under such circumstances.
Arguments of the Parties
The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Vaikuntam Ammangar v. Kallipiran Ayyangar | Raising money for marriage expenses constitutes a necessity under Section 68 of the Contract Act. | Used to support the principle that money advanced for necessaries to a minor is recoverable from the minor's property. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court first determined that no second appeal lies because the suit was under the jurisdiction of a Court of Small Causes and involved a claim below Rs. 500. However, since the appellants filed an application for revision under Section 115 of the CPC, the court treated the matter as a revision application. The court disagreed with the lower appellate court's interpretation of Section 68 of the Contract Act. Although the contract for sale was void due to Defendant 2’s minority, Section 68 provides that a person who supplies necessaries suited to the condition of a person incapable of contracting is entitled to reimbursement from that person's property. The court found that the money supplied for Defendant 2’s marriage expenses qualified as necessaries. Therefore, despite the minor status, Defendant 2’s property is liable to reimburse the plaintiff. The court relied on established authority to uphold this principle and declared the relevant property liable to discharge the plaintiff’s claim.
Holding and Implications
The judgments and decrees of the two lower courts are set aside, and a decree is to be drawn up in accordance with this court's declaration holding Defendant 2 liable to reimburse the plaintiff.
The direct effect of this decision is that the plaintiff’s claim is upheld despite the contract being void due to minority, on the basis that money advanced for necessaries is recoverable from the minor’s property. No new precedent was established; rather, the court applied established principles under Section 68 of the Contract Act.
1. The plaintiff in this suit seeks to recover Rs. 125 by way of principal and Rs. 9-10-0 by way of interest. The money was raised by defendant 2, who was a minor at the time. Defendant 2 entered into an agreement with the plaintiff for the sale of certain land belonging to him. Defendant 1, major brother of defendant 2, negotiated the contract for the sale of the land, which was embodied in the terms of the deed dated 25th May, 1915. The money was raised to provide for the marriage expenses of defendant 2. Defendant 2, within a fortnight after raising and receiving the money, married and applied the money received from the plaintiff in discharge of his marriage expenses. These facts have/been found by the learned Munsif, who granted the plaintiff a decree for the full measure of his claim. The lower appellate Court reversed the decision of the learned Munsif and held that the contract for the sale of the land was absolutely void by reason of the fact that defendant 2 was a minor and incapable of contracting as such; and that Section 68 of the Contract Act did not apply to the facts of this case. He accordingly dismissed the plaintiff's suit.
2. The first point taken before us is that no second appeal lies, inasmuch as the suit was one cognizable by a Court of Small Causes and the claim being under Rs. 500 in value no second appeal lies. After a careful consideration of this question we hold that no second appeal lies; but we find that the appellants have also Jiled an application by way of revision under Section 115 of the CPC, which has been ordered to be heard with this appeal. We think that such an application is competent, and we shall deal with the matter as an application for revision under the Code. We think that the learned Judge was wrong in his interpretation of Section 68 of the Contract Act. On the facts as found in this case, no doubt the contract to sell the land in accordance with the sale-deed, executed by defendant 2 on 25th May, 1915, is void on the ground that the minor was incapable of entering into a contract to sell the interest he possessed in certain immovable property. But Section 68 of the Contract Act, provides that if a person incapable of entering into a contract is supplied by another person with necessaries suited to his condition of life, the person who furnishes such supplies is entitled to be reimbursed from the property of such incapable person. In the present case defendant 2 did receive money from the plaintiff for the purposes of discharging his marriage expenses, which constituted a necessity or legal debt suited to his status and condition of life.
3. We are of opinion therefore that although defendant 2 was a minor at the time that he received the money from the plaintiff, nevertheless he is liable to have his property charged with the liability of reimbursing the plaintiff the money which the plaintiff advanced. There is ample authority in support of this principle of law. In the case of Vaikuntam Ammangar v. Kallipiran Ayyangar(1) it has heen held that the raising of money by a Brahmin widow for the marriage of her daughter was a necessity within the meaning of this section. Accordingly we shall declare that the property of defendant 2 comprising a 4-pie share out of 16-annas of Mauza Nawadih, Thana Latehar, Pargana and District Palamau, or such other property as the defendant 2 may be entitled to, is liable to reimburse and discharge the plaintiff's claim in this action.
4. The judgments and decrees of the two lower Courts are set aside and in lieu thereof it is ordered that a decree be drawn up in accordance with the declaration made by us. The application is accordingly allowed.
V.S/R.K
5. Application allowed.
Alert