JUDGMENT 1. In this case it appears that in Chait 1308 corresponding to the year 1901 a mortgage-bond was executed by the Appellant before us in favour of two mortgagees. Both the mortgagees, it has been found, were minors at the time. They sued upon their mortgage-bond, obtained a decree and in the sale in execution of that decree they bought the property. The mortgagor now sues to have it declared that the mortgage-bond is void and to have the decree and the sale set aside. The only contention advanced on his behalf in this appeal is that though he has taken the money of the minors the mortgage-bond is void and cannot be enforced at their instance. In support of that proposition the learned Pleader who has appeared for the Appellant has cited before us the cases of Mir Sarwarjan v. Fakhruddin Mahomed I. L. R. 39 Cal. 282 : S. C. 16 C. W, N. 74 (1911) and Mohori Bibi v. Dharmadas Ghosh I. L. R. 30 Cal. 539 : S. C. 7 C. W. N. 441 (1903) as also the case of Navakotti Narayan Chetty v. Logalinga Chetty I. L. R. 33 Mad. 312 (1909). No doubt in the cases decided by their Lordships of the Privy Council in Mohori Bibi v. Dharmadas Ghosh . I. L. R. 30 Cal. 539 : S. C. 7 C. W. N. 441 (1903) and Mir Sarwarjan v. Fakhruddin. Mahomed I. L. R. 39 Cal. 282 : S. C. 16 C. W, N. 74 (1911) it has been held that a contract by a minor is not merely voidable but void. But in this case we are not concerned with any covenant which it is for the minors to perform. There is here no question of any reconveyance. The Appellant has taken the minor's money and he now seeks to avoid the contract which he has made in then favour. We cannot find anything in the Transfer of Property Act which nullifies a transfer made by a person of full age in favour of a minor. The minors are now of full ago and they seek to have the contracts in their favour enforced, and we may therefore take it that the mortgage entered into was for their benefit. We cannot find anything in the Transfer of Property Act which nullifies a transfer made by a person of full age in favour of a minor. The minors are now of full ago and they seek to have the contracts in their favour enforced, and we may therefore take it that the mortgage entered into was for their benefit. In support of the view that they may enforce the mortgage, we may refer to the cases that have been cited by the Appellants in their own fax our, that is to say, the case of Navakotti Narayan Chetty v. Logalinga Chetty I. L. R. 33 Mad. 312 (1909) and also the case of Nepal Rai v. Gouri Shankar ILR 33 All. 657 (1911). 2. For these reasons we are of opinion that simply because of the minority of the Respondents at the time when the mortgage in their favour was created we ought not to set aside the decree that has been made in their favour and the sale held there-under. We therefore dismiss this appeal with costs.