Contents

Module 3 ........................................................................................................................................... 2
What agreements are contracts? ....................................................................................................... 2
Who are competent to contract? ...................................................................................................... 2
Khan Gull v. Lakha Singh (1928) ..................................................................................................... 2
Ajudhia Prasad v. Chandan Lal (1937).............................................................................................. 2
Jagar Nath Singh v. Lalta Prasad (1908)............................................................................................ 3
Jennings v. Rundall(1799)................................................................................................................ 3
Raj Rani v. Prem Adib(1949) ........................................................................................................... 3
Roberts v. Gray (1913) .................................................................................................................... 4
Mohiri Bibi v. Dharmodas Ghose (1903) ......................................................................................... 4
Module 3
What agreements are contracts?
All agreements are contracts if they are made by the free consent of parties
competent to contract, for a lawful consideration and with a lawful object, and are
not hereby expressly declared to be void.
Who are competent to contract?
Every person is competent to contract who is of the age of majority according to
the law to which he is subject, and who is of sound mind, and is not disqualified
from contracting by any law to which he is subject. (Alien enemy, Foreign
Sovereigns and Ambassadors, Insolvents and Convicts)
Khan Gull v. Lakha Singh (1928)
In this case, defendant 1 negotiated to sell a parcel of property to the plaintiff while
still a child and fraudulently concealing his age. He was given Rs. 17,500/- as
payment, the plaintiffs had paid Rs. 8,000 in cash to the Sub-Registrar, and the
remaining Rs. 9,500 was secured by a promissory note due on demand. After
receiving money, the Defendant 1 had refused to give ownership of the property,
and the plaintiffs requested that possession of the property sold be handed to
them, or that a decree for Rs. 17,500, the consideration money, be issued together
with interest or damages deriving from breach of contract at the rate of 1% per
mensem, totalling to Rs. 1,050, i.e., for Rs. 19,000 in total, might be passed against
defendant 1’s other property.
Bibee v. Dharmas Ghose, which declares that a person who is incompetent to
contract due to infancy, as defined by Section 11 of the Contract Act, cannot make
a contract within the meaning of the Act. The transaction entered into is not legal.
As a result, the answer to the first question posed is negative.
The answer to the second issue is that, while an infant is not accountable under
the contract, he may be forced in equity to repay the advantage he got by
lying about his age. The principle of equity was applied, and court said that “As
the transaction is wiped out is only fair that both parties should revert and in this
case, restitution is not provided because there is a contract instead it is provided
there is none and both parties should revert to original status”
Ajudhia Prasad v. Chandan Lal (1937)
Ajudhia Prasad vs Chandan Lal Case was based on similar facts as of Khan Gul vs
Lakha Singh case, nevertheless in this case courts refrained from using the
principle of equity and affirmed that application of the principle of equity would
cause chaos.
The issue before the court was, Whether a mortgagee be granted a decree to
recover the principal amount with future interest under section 65 of The Indian
Contract Act,1872 or by application of any equitable principle. Even if the minor
has intentionally misrepresented himself as an adult?
The court said application of sec 65 in case of minors would be chaotic. A decree
of restoration would impose liability to pay on minors and such would
quash the protection provided by the legislation to them. This would open a
wide door for mischief and misuse. People would continue to contract with minors
with confidence furthermore it will be easy for people to obtain documentary
evidence to support the charge of fraud against the minors.
The courts after in examining all the authorities and provision provided that the
courts could not award a decree of restitution in respect of repayment of money
and the court reversed the decision of the lower appellate court and pronounced
the decision in favour of minor.
Jagar Nath Singh v. Lalta Prasad (1908)
There are no estoppels issued against minor when he misrepresents his age
inducing another person to contract with him, was held in Jagar Nath Singh v.
Lalta Prasad. The Allahabad High Court stated that if any underage person induces
another person to purchase property from them, he/she is liable to pay the
benefits received by them due to this transaction before recovering the possession
of the property sold. But the court will not compel any restitution by minor even
when he is a plaintiff when:
the other party was a aware of the infancy so that he was not deceived
the other party has been apart in his dealings with the minor where weather minor
had misrepresented his age but the other party was so zealous to enter into a
transaction that the fault representation exerted no influence on him where the
other party lays no material before the court for coming to the conclusion that
justice requires return of the money paid to the minor.
Jennings v. Rundall (1799)
The defendant hired the horse to ride it for a short journey but ended up taking it
on a much larger journey. As a result, the horse was injured. But the court held that
he was not liable upon the ground that the action was founded in the contract.

Raj Rani v. Prem Adib (1949)

In Raj Rani vs Prem Adib, Prem Adib, who was a film director, entered into a
contract with Indrani's father. According to this contract, Prem Adib was to give
role to Indrani, who was a minor. But later, the defendant gave the role to another
actress. The father as well as the daughter were not in a position to sue the
defendant. If the contract was with the father, it was without consideration and
thus, void. From daughter's point of view this contract was void and invalid
because she was a minor.
Section 183 of Indian Contract Act states that Any person who is of the age of
majority according to the law to which he is subject, and who is of sound mind,
may employ an agent. Thus, Indrani was not in any position to enter into the
contract. Section 11 also supports the above-mentioned statement. However, here
it can be observed that the defendant took unfair advantage of the minor.

Roberts v. Gray (1913)

Gray, a young billiard professional, agreed to go on a joint tour with Roberts, an
adult professional. Robert expended a lot of time, went to a lot of trouble and
incurred liabilities to make the necessary preparations. A dispute arose and Gray
repudiated the contract before the tour began. Robert sued for damages. Gray
pleaded his infancy, alleging the contract was not for necessaries.
The court ruled that the contract between Roberts and Gray was for the benefit of
Gray, the minor and did not contain harsh terms. The contract was thus deemed
binding on the minor and he was liable for breach of contract.
Mohiri Bibi v. Dharmodas Ghose (1903)
The respondent was Dharmodas Ghose, who was a minor, received a loan from
Brahmodutt, a lender in Calcutta, by saying that he was an adult and had written a
mortgage deed (Mortgage Deed) in his favour to get a loan. At the time when the
mortgage was being considered for advance money, At the time of standing,
Kedarnath, the agent of Brahmodutt, had received information that the respondent
was a minor; So, he cannot execute the deed. But still he executed a mortgage deed
from Dharamdos Ghose. The minor then filed a suit against Brahmodutt by his
mother and guardian in which he appeals to the court to cancel the mortgage deed,
as he was a minor at the time of the mortgage deed being executed. Justice Jenkins
(Jenkins J.) who was a judge of the trial court, Accepting the appeal of the
respondent, he cancelled the mortgage deed.
The appeal against the order was also quashed by the High Court; Therefore, the
appellant appealed to the Privy Council. Brahmodutt had died at the time of
making this appeal. So, he was replaced by his successor, Mohori Bibee.
1. Any contract with a minor or an infant is neither valid nor voidable but is
void ab-initio.
 2. Section 64 of the Contract Act against the minor does not apply as these
sections require that the parties to the contract should be able to make
contracts.
3. The principle of restriction cannot apply in this case because both the
parties were aware that the contract was being done with a minor.
4. Under the Specific Relief Act, 1963, the minor may be compelled to return
the benefits availed under zero contract. But in this case, the court does not
think it appropriate, because when Dharmodas Ghose was given a mortgage
loan, the appellant knew that he was a minor.

Nash v. Inman (1908)

A tailor supplied 13 waistcoats and other things of that kind to an undergraduate

student when latter was a minor. Student refused to pay for the goods supplied and
tailor brought this suit against him for recovery of price of those goods.

ISSUES:

1. Whether the goods so supplied fall into the category of necessary?

2. If the answer is No whether the contract was enforceable at law?
3. On whom does the onus to prove or disprove the necessity of goods so
supplied fall?

Necessaries means goods or services suitable to the condition in life of

minor, or any other person incapable of forming contract for himself, and as
to his actual requirements at the time of sale and delivery”. This means that
not only the goods need to be suitable and necessary to the condition in life
of a minor (here) but also be needed by minor in actuality, i.e., he must not
be already having sufficient supply of such goods. The onus to prove that
the thing contracted for was a necessity lies on plaintiff, however difficult it
may be to prove that it was needed by minor in actuality.

Chapple v. Cooper (1844)

It was held that a contract made by a minor for the burial of her deceased husband
was a contract for necessaries. However, whether the contract is for necessaries is
not decided on the objective basis of the requirements for living of an entirely
abstract, reasonable, minor. The test is relative: it is dependent upon the age and
social situation of the particular minor.