When defacto guardian is liable to restore benefit acquired by him by selling minor's property?

A minor, who repudiates an alienation of his property by a
defacto guardian, is not bound to restore the benefits derived by him, if the
purchaser was aware of the fact of his minority and the minor was not guilty
of any fraud, misrepresentation, etc. In such cases, the purchaser cannot

claim any relief against the minor - either personal or against his property.
The defacto guardian may be liable personally and out of his properties for
dealing with a Hindu minor's property in contravention of Section 11 of the
Act 1956 depending on the terms in the document concerned.
By no
stretch of reasoning, it can be held that the property shown as security in
the failed deed of alienation will automatically get transferred to the
purchaser the moment the document is declared void.
Therefore, the
remedy of defendants 1 and 2, if at all is only to proceed against the defacto
guardian, viz., the 3rd defendant, subject to the terms in Ext.A2 and the
sanction of law. 
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
MR. JUSTICE A.HARIPRASAD
 6TH DAY OF APRIL 2015
RSA.No. 885 of 2006 


MANIYAN NADAR, 
Vs
 HARIKUMAR KUNJIRAMAN NAIR

Citation;AIR 2015 Kerala183

Print Page

Whether person who has received benefit under void agreement is bound to restore said benefit?

We may also refer to Section 65 of the Contract Act with, mirus the illustrations, is as follows:-

"65. Obligation of person who has received advantage under void agreement or contract that becomes void.- When an agreement is discovered to be void, or when a contract becomes void, any person who has received any advantage under such agreement or contract is bound to restore it, or to make compensation for it, to the person from whom he received it."

This Section, which is based on equitable doctrine, provides for the restitution of any benefit received under a void agreement or contract and, therefore, mandates that any "person" which obviously would include a party to the agreement, who has received any advantage under an agreement which is discovered to be void or under a contract which becomes void, has to restore such advantage or to pay compensation for it, to the person from whom he received that advantage or benefit.

Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that Section 65 would apply to a situation where the agreement is "discovered to be void" or where the contract "becomes void" and not to an agreement which is void from its inception. This argument cannot be allowed to prevail.

Supreme Court of India

Sri Tarsem Singh vs Sri Sukhminder Singh on 2 February, 1998

Bench: S. Saghir Ahmad, M. Jagannadha Rao

        Citation;AIR 1998 SC 1400

Print Page