Section 11 Special Relief Act (I of 1877), Clause for Contract Declaration by Section 42 Minor void transaction The plaintiff's contention was that he was trivial at the time of the transaction and was unable to enter into any transaction suit. Was simultaneously excluded rationally. The plaintiff was 11 years old when the alleged act was executed and would be void as there was no such legal effect as the minor could not enter into any transaction. Any contract by the minor will be void and no rights or obligations will be accepted by it. The immovable suit property, which was not divided, remained in the possession of the plaintiff but failed to ask the transaction concerning the age of majority but the initial question was whether he had the same knowledge before filing the case. I was and he waived his right was not proved by the defendant that he was obliged to prove false cases. He could be questioned when it came to disclosure. E and the limitation will be the beginning of the burden with the knowledge that the defendant had to prove the process under question which failed to carry out such burden, the minor witness cases presented by the defendant, the land. Details and payment were not familiar. Defendants considering the sale were unable to prove the process in question under the law; both courts below did not consider the plaintiff's disability to be negligent at the time of execution, and the payment of the sale consideration was due to the lace and application of the sale. Was not properly adjudicated. The unclean decisions and orders of the free mind by the courts below
Related judgments — Peshawar High Court NWFP, 2014
