' MUHAMMAD SAYEED AKHTAR, J.---The plaintiff/respondent No.1 filed a suit on 28-1-1996 for specific performance of contract dated 12-8-1979 regarding land measuring 5 Marlas for a consideration of Rs.4,500 situate in Mauza Lalian and for cancellation of registered Sale-deed No.993/1 of 2001 registered on 19-12-1995 in favour of defendant No.4/petitioner No.3. It was averred in the plaint that the suit-land was owned by one Dosa. Defendant No.3/the father of defendants 1 and 2 assured the plaintiff/respondent that he had purchased the suit-land for a consideration of Rs.1,625 from Dosa vide registered sale deed dated 24-5-1975 in the name of his minor sons/defendants 1 and 2. The father of the minors needed some money for their upbringing. An agreement to this effect was entered on 12-8-1979 between the plaintiff and defendants 1 and 2 through their father defendant No.3, the natural guardian. The sale consideration was paid on the same date i.e. 12-8-1979 and the possession of the land was also handed over to the plaintiff. On attaining majority the defendants 1 and 2 were bound to fulfil their part of the contract. The plaintiff has spent huge amount on the improvement of the land. About seven days before the filing of the suit the defendant No.4 attempted to interfere in the possession of the plaintiff. On scrutiny of the record it transpired that the land in dispute had been sold to defendant No.4 vide registered sale-deed dated 19-12-1995.
The said sale was illegal, collusive and ineffective upon the rights of the plaintiff.
'The suit was resisted denying the execution of the agreement in favour of the plaintiff. The alienation of land in favour of defendant No.4 for a consideration of Rs.30,000 was admitted. It was further stated that the defendant No.3 (the father of minors/defendants 1 and 2) had no authority to transfer the suit-land as the defendants were minors on 12-8-1979.
' Out of the pleadings of the parties following issues were framed:--
(1) Whether the suit is time barred? OPD.
(2) Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action? OPD.
(3) Whether the defendant No.4 is bona fide purchaser - of disputed property? If so, its effect? OPD.
(4) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree for specific performance of contract d?t:-.Cl 12-8- 1979 as prayed for? OPP.
(5) Whether the respondents/ defendants Nos . 1 to 3 have violated the orders of Court? If so, its effect? OPD.
(6) Relief.
' The learned trial Court vide its judgment dated 12-9-2000 decreed the suit of the plaintiff/respondent No.
1. The appeal before the learned Additional District Judge, Chiniot, District Jhang failed on 6-11- 2002.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioners 1 and 2 were minors on the alleged date of agreement i.e. 12-8-1979. The agreement with the minors was a void agreement under section 11 of the Contract Act, 1872. He argued that according to the agreement to sell dated 12-8-1979, Exh.P.1 the minors were to get the sale-deed registered in favour of the plaintiff after obtaining majority. Riaz, petitioner was born on 31-10-1966 vide birth certificate Exh.D.2 and he attained the majority in 1984. Petitioner No.1 was three years elder to Muhammad Riaz as such he attained majority in 1981. The defendant's suit has been filed on 28-1-1996 i.e. About more than 11 years after the minors attained majority which was clearly barred by time. He lastly urged that the agreement with the minors being void could not be enforced against the minors. Reliance was placed on Pandit Krishana Chandra Sharma v. Seth Rishabha Kumar AIR 1939 Nagpur 265.
' Conversely the learned counsel for the respondent argued that the natural guardian of the minors entered into contract with the respondent for the sale of the land, the same being for the benefit of the minors was valid but could be avoided at the instance of the minors after attaining majority.
The minors failed to file a suit within three years after attaining the majority. Reliance was placed on Manzoor Khan and others v. Bhole Khan and others 1991 CLC 640 and Yamin Khan and 5 others v. Rais Jhangli Khan and another 1999 CLC 1755.
3. I have gone through the judgments of the Courts below, perused the record and considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. A minor is incapable of entering into a contract under section 11 of the Contract Act, 1872. An agreement with a minor is void, being nullity it has no existence in the eye of law. In the case of The Chairman, District Screening Committee, Lahore and another v. Sharif Ahmad Hashmi PLD 1976 SC 258 the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan observed as under:-- "A common place instance of a void act or transaction in the sense of an absolute nullity is an agreement by a person under a legal disability e.g. a minor or a person of unsound mind. Such act is void ab initio and is incapable of ratification or confirmation. See section 11 of the Contract Act, 1872. Law forbids the enforcement of such a transaction even if the minor were to ratify it after attaining majority."
Similar view was taken in Karim Bakhsh v. Gul Rehman 1990 CLC 1200 and Sher Baz Khan and 73 others v. Mst. Malkani Sahibzadi Tiwana and 2 others PLD 1996 Lahore 483. Admittedly the petitioners 1 and 2 were minors on 12-8-1979.
The agreement to sell Exh. P.1 shows that the minors entered into contract with the respondent through their father. The agreement specifically recites that the sale-deed was to be registered on attaining majority by the minors. The agreement also shows that the father of the minors did not sell the land being natural or legal guardian of the minors. The minors themselves entered into a contract with the respondent through their father. It was conditional that the sale would be completed/registered after attaining majority by the minors.Admittedly the minors attained majority in 1981 and 1984. The respondent did not file the suit for specific performance of the contract within three years under Article 113 of the Limitation Act, 1908. In my view the suit filed by the respondent after more than 11 years is clearly barred by the time.
A legal guardian of the property of a minor cannot alienate the immovable property of the minor except in the following cases:--
(i) Where he can obtain double its value;
(ii) Where the minor has no other property and the sale is necessary for his maintenance;
(iii) Where there are debts of the deceased, and no other means of paying them;
(iv) Where there are legacies to be paid, and no other means of paying them;
(v) Where the expenses exceed the income of the property;
(vi) Where the property is falling into decay; and
(vii) When the property has been usurped, and the guardian has reason to fear that there is no chance of fair restitution.
None of the above conditions is present in the instant case. See Mahmedan Law by D.F. Mulla, Chapter XVIII Para.362. The contention of the learned counsel for the respondent that the minors should have filed a suit within three years to avoid the contract is devoid of any force. After attaining the age of majority, the minors did not even ratify the contract. It was not for the minors to file the suit for avoiding the contract rather it was for the plaintiff/respondent to file a suit for specific performance of the contract as the agreement clearly stated that the sale would be registered on attaining the age of majority by the minors. The cases relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondent do not help him rather support the case of the petitioners. Both the Courts below also erred in law in coming to the conclusion that the cause of action arose from the date of the denial of the performance. The agreement to sell dated 12-8-1979, Exh.P.1 clearly shows that the sale-deed was to be registered in favour of defendants on attaining majority by the minors. In my view the cause of action would arise to the defendants from the date of majority attained by the minors.
4. For what has been stated above this revision is allowed. The judgments of the Courts below are set aside and the suit of the plaintiff/respondent is dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.