Introduction

• This case is related to the contract with the minor. As the Indian Contract Act, 1872 (ICA) said contract with minor is void ab intio, there is no legal enforceability of the contract with minor under the Indian law.
• According to Section 11 of ICA, a minor is a person who is competent to enter into a contract.

Facts

• This appeal was from a suit for sale based on a mortgage deed dated 15th October 1925 executed by the defendants (who were minors at the time) in favor of the plaintiffs.
• The defendants pleaded that they were minors at the time of the mortgage deed, and a certificated guardian had been appointed for them.
• The trial court found that the defendants were more than 18 years but under 21 years of age and held that the plaintiffs could not recover the amount under Section 68 of the ICA.
• The lower appellate court held that the defendants were minors (under 21 years), the marriage expenses for which the money was advanced were not "necessaries," and Section 68 had no application.
  • However, it decreed the claim in favor of the plaintiffs based on the finding of "fraudulent misrepresentation" by the defendants.

Issues Involved

• Whether the plaintiff can enforce the mortgage deed, or the defendant are liable to pay as they are incompetent to contract?
• Whether a contract within the Act's meaning necessitates its existence, which cannot occur in a child's case?

Observation

• The Privy Council case of Mohori Bibee v. Dharmodas Ghose (1903) established that a contract by a minor is void, not merely voidable, and Sections 64 and 65 of the Contract Act have no application in such cases.
• Numerous Indian High Court decisions have consistently followed this rule and held that Sections 64 and 65 of the ICA cannot be invoked against a minor defendant.
• The plea of estoppel cannot prevail against a statutory provision protecting minors, and no new rule of equity can be invented contrary to established English law principles.
• The distinction between a minor as a plaintiff (seeking equity) and a minor as a defendant (not seeking relief) is important, and courts have consistently refrained from passing decrees enforcing pecuniary liability against minor defendants.

Conclusion

• The court held that Section 43 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (TOPA) dealing with transfers by unauthorized persons, is not applicable to cases where a minor has made a transfer during minority, as the minor possesses an interest in the property throughout.