Fernando v. Fernando - Lease by a Minor: Mesne Profits and Prescription (September 7, 1916)

Aug 23, 2026

Upload by Jacob

A 1916 dispute addresses a lease made by a minor to raise money for her marriage. The lessee knew she was a minor but acted in good faith for the minor’s benefit. The minor sought declarations that the lease was null and void, title to the land, ejectment, and mesne profits for the prior three-year period, while the defendant alternatively requested restitution of the Rs. 1,000 consideration and raised prescription. The court held that, given the invalidity of the lease in the circumstances, mesne profits were recoverable and the defendant owed return of the lease money; prescription runs only from when the minor disturbs possession.

LanguageEnglish

CategoryResearch & Report

FormatPDF

Pages9

Reading Time23 min

AccessFree to download

Facts and procedural history

Claims and alternative relief

District Judge's decision

Issues on appeal

Recovery of mesne profits

Restitution of consideration

When prescription begins to run

Roman-Dutch law on minors

Void versus voidable distinctions

Option exercise and legal effect

Court’s conclusions

(193 ) Pre₈ent:Ennis J.and Schneider A.J.FERNAND0 et al.v.FERNANDO. 307—D.C.Negombo,11,126. Lease by a minor—I8 lease void or voidable—A ction for declaratron thatlease toas null and void and mesne profits—Olaim by defendant forrefund of rent—Prescription. Land was leased by a minor to raise money for her marriage.The lessee knew the girl was a minor,but acted in good faith forher·benefit.The minor brought an action for a declaration thatthe iease.was nall and void,and for mesne profits for a period ofthree years immediately preceding the action.The defendantprayed,inter alia,for the reburn of the lease money,with interest,if the lease be declared null and·void. Held,that as the lease Was invalid in the circumstances, theplaintiff was entitled to mesne profits,and the defendant to thereturn of the lease money. “Inasmuch as the lease was voidable at the option of the minor,the defendant's cause of action arose only when the plaintiff beganto disturb him in his possession,and the claim for restitution oflease money is not prescribed." ERNIs J.—There is no doubt that the Roman-Dutch juristsexpressed the.opinion that 8 deed by &minor was“null andvoid,"but they do not appear to.have had in mind the distinctionmade by later-day jurists between a “void” contract and 8"voidsble"one ........It would seem,therefore,that an aliena-tion by a minor is voidable at the option of the minor,and it is onlgwhen the minor exercises the option that the Iaw takes effect,andthe transaction is said to be."ipso jure void." SOHNBEDBB A.J.—A minor's contract is neither void nor voidabiein the sense in which those words are understood in the Englishlaw ,......:According to the Roman-Dutch law a minor's contractis such tat it does not bind the minor nnleas he ratified it oDattaining majority,while it binds the other party to it. # TE facts are set out in the judgment of Schneider A.J. Samarawickreme and De Alwis,for defendant,appellant. A.St.V.Jayewardene and Zoysa,for plaintiffs,respondents. Cur.adv.vult. September 7,1916.ENNIs J.— This was an action for a declaration that a lease made by thefrst plaintiff was null and void;for a declaration of title to theland leased;for ejectment;and for mesne profits. The defendant .(194 ). admitted that the plaintiff was a minor at the time ·she executed.the lease,but denied that the lease was null and void. In thealternative the defendant claimed the return of the consideration,Rs.1,000,paid for the lease.On the defendant's alternative claimthe plaintiff raised the issue of prescription.The learned DistrictJudge declared the plaintiff entitled.to the land,but refused theplaintiff's prayer for mesne profits and the defendant's prayer.forthe return of the lease money.He,·however,gave no costs to theplaintiff. 1916.ENNIS J. ·.Fernando v..Fernando The defendant appeals from the order refusing the prayer for thereturn of the consideration;and the plaintiff has filed objections tothe rejection of her claim for mesne profits and the order as to costs. It has been decided in a series of cases(e.g.,Andris Appu v.Abanchi Appu,¹Perera v..Perera,²Ralwatte v.Hevawitarna,5Gunasekera Hamini v.Don Baron⁴and Sinno Appu v.Podi Nona 5)that a conveyance by a minor without the sanction of a Court is,by Roman-Dutch law,said to be null and.void.The questions fordetermination on the appeal are.whether,the lease being null andvoid,mesne profits can be recovered;whether restitution of theconsideration can be ordered,and if so,from what.date prescriptionbegins to run? It was argued for the·appellant that the logical result.of declaringa lease null and void was to leave the ownership untouched;thatthe transaction could not be ratified;that the mesne profits mustbelong to the owner;and that any money paid for the lease mustbe held to be money paid-without consideration,and recoverable bythe lessee at any time after payment(i.e.,a cause of action wouldacerue from the date of payment,and hence prescr

FAQs

Why was the lease considered invalid in Fernando v. Fernando?

The lease was made by a minor without the proper sanction and was treated as invalid in the circumstances. As a result, it was not enforceable and was subject to the minor’s right to invalidate it.

Can mesne profits be recovered when a lease by a minor is null and void?

Yes. The court held that because the lease was invalid, the plaintiff was entitled to mesne profits for the relevant period, while the defendant was entitled to restitution of the lease money.

When does the prescription period begin for restitution of the lease consideration?

The restitution claim was held not to be prescribed; the cause of action for the defendant’s restitution arose only when the plaintiff began to disturb the defendant in possession.

Aug 23, 2026

Upload by Jacob