' In a suit for recovery of Rs,90,491 against the respondent, it was claimed by the petitioner that it advertised the auction of a contract of Chabba-Rehri at General Bus Stand, Jhang for the year 1988-89. Four persons took part in the auction including the respondent, who deposited a sum of Rs,20,000 each in advance in the Municipal Fund. The respondent was the highest bidder who offered to pay Rs,3,30,500 to the petitioner for the aforesaid contract. The offer was approved by the petitioner vide its Resolution No,21, dated 31-5-1988. The respondent took charge of the work, started realizing the tax from Rehriwalas; he deposited a total sum of Rs,2,44,149 in the Municipal Fund till the expiry of the contract period. A sum of Rs,86,351 was outstanding against him as contract money, while an amount of Rs,4,140 was payable by him as income-tax. The respondent was thus defaulter to the tune of Rs,90,491 at the end of contract period, for which notices were issued to him but without any response.
' The respondent through his written statement contested the suit stating therein that he was a minor suffering from legal incapacity to enter into a contract wherefor, neither a contract was made with him by the petitioner nor could the petitioner make a valid contract with the respondent and it was claimed that in absence of a valid contract no recovery could be made from the respondent.
2. In the trial, petitioner produced P.Ws. Nos.1 to 6 in support of its case, while the respondent appeared himself as a solitary witness, produced copies of a school leaving certificate and Matric Certificate and closed his defence. He claimed to be minor and denied having entered into any contract with the petitioner. The learned Civil Judge decided all the issues in favour of the petitioner and decreed the suit vide judgment and decree, dated 5-12-1995. The respondent filed an appeal which was heard by the learned Additional District Judge, Jhang who accepted the same, set aside the judgment/decree of the Civil Judge and dismissed the suit of the petitioner vide his judgment/decree dated 3-4-1997. This judgment and decree has been assailed by the petitioner through this revision petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the learned Additional District Judge not only misread the evidence but also failed to take into consideration the cogent, consistent and credible evidence led by the petitioner. It was further contended that the learned Additional District Judge misinterpreted the law by holding that in view of minority of the respondent the contract was invalid and no recovery thereunder could be made. It was further contended that the learned Additional District Judge lost sight of the fact that the respondent committed a fraud and misrepresented the fact about his capacity and age by deliberately concealing his minority. It was also contended that respondent having participated in the auction proceedings won the contract, operated the same and earned a lot of money and as such respondent cannot be allowed to turn around and deceptively hide behind his alleged minority to defraud the petitioner and its legitimate contract money. Even otherwise, the benefits drawn by the respondent were recoverable under law despite his minority.
4. Learned counsel for the respondent supported the impugned judgment of the learned Additional District Judge to state that no contract was made with the respondent nor could such a contract be validly made with him to make respondent liable to the petitioner to any money whatsoever.
5. Having attended to the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and the record, I believe minority of the respondent at the time of the auction and grant of contract has ceased to be a disputed question. The only case advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that despite his minority, the respondent must return the benefits attained by him on the basis' of a contract secured by the respondent through fraudulent representation and concealment of his minority.
Since the respondent admittedly suffered from the incapacity at the time when he made the contract, therefore, the said contract granted by the petitioner to the respondent was void as initio under section 11 of B the Contract Act. No rights or liabilities can attach to or arise out of a void contract. As has been held by the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of The Chairman, District Scrutiny Committee and another v. Sharif Ahmad Hashmi reported as PLD 1976 SC 258 that a void contract or act is a nullity and law forbids enforcement of such a contract even if the minor was to ratify it after attaining majority. Relevant is the decision in Firm Bhola Ram Harbans Lal v. Bhagat Ram and others AIR 1927 Lah. 24 that "a minor can enforce a contract made in his favour for a valuable consideration. While no liability can be incurred by a minor, he is not debarred from acquiring a title to anything valuable".
6. In view thereof the learned Additional District Judge, through his impugned judgment and decree did not commit any material irregularity in holding that contract granted by the petitioner in favour of the respondent was void and no rights flow therefrom in favour of the petitioner and no liability arises therefrom against the respondent.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the case of Lilla Dhar v. Piarey Lal AIR 1921 All. 326 to convass that despite the nullity of the contract owing to respondent's minority, the same having been obtained by the respondent through a fraudulent representation qua his age, he must return the benefit secured by him through the said contract. The said judgment is based upon a suit which was brought by a minor to avoid a mortgage and the Court held as under:-- "In that case the jury had found the minor guilty of fraud and the Judge who tried the case had thereupon, in a suit by the moneylender, ordered him to restore the money on the ground of fraud.
The Court of appeal held that such a suit would not lie. It was in fact turning a suit based upon a contract which the law did not recognize into a suit for damages for tort.
' Mr. Justice Lawrence pointed out that if the minor came into Court when he had been guilty of such fraud, the assistance of the Court would be refused to him unless he made good his representation; that is to say, if the minor sues for redress and has obtained the contract by his own fraud he cannot get redress unless he restores the other party to the position in which he was.
A two-Judge Division Bench decision of this Court adopted that principle in the case of `Radhe Shiam v. Behari Lal (1918) 40 All. 558 = 48 I.C. 478 = 16 AU 592 and we think that, that must be accepted as the binding principle in this Province in this rather difficult question. The result is that the plaintiff is not bound to submit to having his suit dismissed. Indeed he is entitled to have it declared that the mortgage deed is not binding on him. But he can only obtain that relief on the condition that he gives back the exact sum which he received from the moneylender at the time of the contract."
8. In the present case, the suit was not brought by the minor to get a contract avoided. Had he done so, the Court could validly refuse relief to the minor till restoration of benefits drawn by him from his contracting party. In the present case, the suit was brought by the petitioner Municipal Committee for recovery on the basis of minor's liability arising out of the contract which was obviously void. Since the minor cannot be burdened with liability of a void contract, howsoever obtained, petitioner's suit has been validly dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge through the impugned judgment and decree.
9. In view thereof, this petition is dismissed with no order as to costs.