A, a minor fraudulently representing himself to be full age includes B to advance Rs. 10,000 on a simple mortgage of A’s property X of the value of Rs. 15,000. State giving reasons whether: (a) A suit by ‘A’ to set aside the contract will succeed. (b) …

Question: A, a minor fraudulently representing himself to be full age includes B to advance Rs. 10,000 on a simple mortgage of A’s property X of the value of Rs. 15,000. State giving reasons whether:

1. A suit by ‘A’ to set aside the contract will succeed.

2. ‘B’ can in way recover from A the whole or any part of the such advanced by him. [BJS 1978]

Find the answer to the mains question only on Legal Bites.[A, a minor fraudulently representing himself to be full age includes B to advance Rs. 10,000 on a simple mortgage of A’s property X of the value of Rs. 15,000. State giving reasons whether: (a) A suit by ‘A’ to set aside the contract will succeed. (b) …]

Answer

In the case Mohori Bibee v. Dharmodas Ghose [(1908) 21 All 21], it was concluded that any contract that involves a minor will be void ab initio and will follow no consequences. This was the landmark judgment that stated the nature of the minor’s agreement.

So, if a minor enters into a contract, he will not be liable, he will not be asked to compensate for the breach of the contract and he cannot restitute a contract after he becomes a major.

If a minor misrepresents his age and claims to be an adult and also enters into a contract, he can be asked to restore the goods in his possession that were part of the contract, as long as they are in his possession (not sold/given to someone else or converted them) and it is not a consideration (money). If asked to do so otherwise, it would mean enforcing a void contract i.e., a minor’s agreement. ‘A’ being a minor, has no obligation to pay compensation to ‘B’ and there will be no estoppel held against him.

Similar were the facts as of the present case in Mohori Bibee v. Dharmodas Ghose where Dharmodas Ghose (a minor) mortgaged his property in favour of Mr. Brahmo Dutt (who had the knowledge that the plaintiff was minor). A suit was filed by Dharmodas against Mr. Dutt on the basis that he was a minor and hence the mortgage should be void. The judgment of the case was that any contract that involves a minor will be void ab initio so in this case, the mortgage deed was also void.

Thus, there is no need of filing a suit by ‘A’ to set aside the contract because such agreement between ‘A’ and ‘B’ in lieu of incompetency of one of the parties, ‘A’ being a minor is “void-ab-initio i.e. void since its inception“, hence there is no question of the formation of the contract in the first place.

Secondly, as discussed aforesaid, when the benefit taken by the minor is a monetary benefit, then the opposite party cannot go to court asking refund or compensation of the same. As no estoppels or restitution principles work against the minor’s agreement, ‘B’ has no claim to recover from ‘A’ the whole or any part of the advanced money given to ‘A’.

Thus, a person dealing with a minor has no defense if he reasonably believed the minor to be of full age, or even if the minor has fraudulently misrepresented the age and induced such person to enter into a contract.

---

Law of Contract Mains Questions Series: Important Questions for Judiciary, APO & University Exams

1. Law of Contract Mains Questions Series Part-I
2. Law of Contract Mains Questions Series Part-II
3. Law of Contract Mains Questions Series Part-III
4. Law of Contract Mains Questions Series Part-IV
5. Law of Contract Mains Questions Series Part-V
6. Law of Contract Mains Questions Series Part-VI
7. Law of Contract Mains Questions Series Part-VII
8. Law of Contract Mains Questions Series Part-VIII
9. Law of Contract Mains Questions Series Part-IX
10. Law of Contract Mains Questions Series Part-X