by sachin sharma manipal jaipur

1. CAPACITY OF PARTIES:
Definition: According to section 11 of the Indian Contract Act,
1872,”every person is competent to contract who is f 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”

2. Agreements with a Minor:
• A minor is a person who has not attained majority. According to
section 3 of the Indian Majority Act 1875, a person is deemed to have
attained majority as under:
Where a guardian of a minor’s person or
property is appointed under the
guardian and wards Act, 1890
On Completion of 21 years
Where minor’s property has passed
under the superintendence of the court
of wards
On Completion of 21 years
In other cases On Completion of 18 years

3. Position of Agreements with a Minor:
• The law protects minor’s rights because they are not mature and may
not possess the capacity to judge what is good and what is bad for
them.
• The position of agreements with or by a minor may be summarized as
under:
1. Validity:
• An agreement with a minor is void ab-initio
• [Mohiri Bibee V. Dharmodas Ghosh] D, a minor borrowed a sum from M by executing a
mortgage of his property in favour of M. Subsequently, D sued for setting aside the
mortgage. The privy council held that sections 10 and 11 of the Indian Contract Act make
the minor’s agreement void and therefore the mortgage was not valid. M prayed for
refund of the amount by the minor. It was held that the money advanced to minor
cannot be recovered because minor’s agreement was void.

4. Cont.. Position of agreements with by a minor
2. No Estoppel: a minor is not estopped from setting up the plea of minority.
He may plead infancy to escape from being liable.
• In G. Bhimappa Meti V. Balangowda Bhimangowda; the Bombay High Court held that
• “where an infant represents fraudulently or otherwise that he is of age and thereby
induces another to enter into a contract with him, he in an action founded on the
contract, is not estopped from setting up infancy.”
3. In Case of Fraudulent representation of age by minor: According to sections
30 and 33 of the specific Relief Act, 1963, in case of a fraudulent
misrepresentation of his age by the minor inducing the other party to enter
in to a contract, the court may award compensation to the other party.
• Case: the Lahore high Court in Khan Gul V. Lakha Singh held that where the contract is
set aside, the status quo ante should be restored and the court may direct the minor on
equitable grounds to restore or property to the other party could be traced.

5. 4. Ratification on attaining the age of majority: