P.C. Pandit, J. - (1.) ON 20th October, 1962, Jai Chand, by a written deed, agreed to sell agricultural land measuring 101 Kanals 7 Marias to Jiwan, minor son of Hakam Singh, for Rs. 4500 -. On behalf of the minor, his father, acting as the guardian, executed the said agreement. The sale -deed had to be executed by 5th November, 1962. It appears that Jai Chand did not do so, but went on getting the date of execution of sale -deed extended. Finally, on 1st December, 1964. it was agreed that the sale -deed would be executed by 14th January, 1965. As he refused to abide by the agreement, Hakam Singh, as the next friend of his minor son Jiwan Singh, brought a suit in January 1966 against Jai Chand for the specific performance of the agreement of sale. During the pendency of the said suit. Jai Chand sold the land in dispute, on 20th May. 1966, to Sunder Singh and others. Those vendees were, subsequently, impleaded as Defendants in the suit.
(2.) THE suit was contested mainly by the vendees on a number of pleas, but in the present appeal, we are concerned only with two of them. It was said that Jai Chand was a minor at the time of the original agreement of sale as well as at the time of the subsequent agreements extending the date for the execution of the sale -deed. The said agreements were, therefore, void and could not be enforced. It was further pleaded that the Plaintiff was also a minor at the time of the execution of the agreement dated 20th October, 1962, and was still a minor and that being so, he was not entitled to the specific performance of the agreement of sale made in his favour by Jai Chand. The trial Judge came to the conclusion that Jai Chand was a minor at the time of the various agreements made by him with the Plaintiff and, therefore, those agreements were void and could not be enforced by the Plaintiff. He also held that the Plaintiff, being admittedly a minor, could not sue for specific performance of the contract entered into by Jai Chand with him regarding the sale of the property in question. In view of these findings, the trial Judge did not consider it necessary to decide the other issues arising in the case and dismissed the suit.
(3.) WHEN the matter went in appeal before the learned Additional District Judge, Ferozepur, he came to the conclusion that Jai Chand had not been proved to be a minor at the time lie entered into the agreement of sale with the Plaintiff. He held that the agreement executed by a major in favour of a minor through his guardian, was not void but was voidable at the instance of the minor. He also found that the Plaintiff, who was a minor, was entitled to seek specific performance of the agreement of sale made by Jai Chand in his favour. On these findings, he came to the conclusion that the suit could not have been dismissed. Consequently, he set aside the judgment and decree of the trial Court and remanded the case to it for deciding the other issues in the suit in the light of the findings given by him. Against this remand order, the present appeal has been filed by Sunder Singh and others, who are the vendees from Jai Chand.;