Find a Lawyer

ADEEL SULTAN versus KHALID RASHEED

ection Section 11A Ability to enter into a contract - Scope - Property of a minor sold by his father or natural guardian - Legal status The section 11 of the Contract Act, 1872, provided that the minor is a contractual agreement by the father Can't be qualified. Until such thing was found against the interests of the minor, the inquiry should look at the minor's benefits as the most important consideration. Every contract by the minor must be for its benefit. P. 593, 595] A, B and, C

PLD 2017 Lahore 590

Before Abdul Rahman Aurangzeb, J

ADEEL SULTAN—Petitioner

versus

KHALID RASHEED and 2 others—Respondents

Civil Revision No. 2822 of 2013, heard on 2nd March, 2017.

(a) Contract Act (IX of 1872)—

—S. 11—Competency to enter into a contract—Scope—Property belonging to a minor sold by his father or natural guardian— Legality—Section 11 of the Contract Act, 1872 provided that competence of father to contract on behalf of minor could not be questioned until and unless the same was found against the interest of the minor—Benefit of minor had to be viewed as the paramount consideration—Every contract on behalf of minor must to be for his benefit. [pp. 593, 595] A, B &, C

Muhammad Mursaleen v. Syed Noor Muhammad Hussaini PLD 1968 Kar. 163 and Barkat Ali v. Aftab Ahmad 1992 CLC 1490 ref.

(b) Contract Act (IX of 1872)—

—S. 11—Competency to enter into a contract—Scope—Immovable property belonging to a minor—Circumstances under which a legal guardian could sell immoveable property belonging to a minor stated.

(ii) Where the minor had no other property, and the sale was absolutely necessary for his maintenance; or

(i) Where the guardian could obtain double the value of

(iii) Where the minor died in debt, and there were no other means of paying the debt but by sale of the property; or

(iv) Where there were legacies to be paid, and no other means of paying them but by sale of the property or

(v) Where the income or produce of the property was not sufficient to meet the expenses of keeping it; or

(vi) Where the property was falling into decay or may be in danger of being destroyed; and

(vii) Where the property had been usurped and the guardian had reasons to fear that there was no chance of fair restitution, [p. 595] C

Ch. Muhammad Yaqoob Sindhu for Petitioner.

Haris Azmat and Mohammad Bilal Ramzan for Respondents Nos.l and 2.

Ex parte: Respondent No.3.

Date of hearing: 2nd March, 2017.

family advocate from Dera Ghazi Khan lawyer