Before
THE HOUSE OF LORDS
Mr. Lloyd Patrick Rayney………………………………………PLAINTIFF
Versus
The State of Western Australia………………………………………..DEFENDANT
SUBMITTED BEFORE THE HON’BLE CIVIL JUDG
MEMORIAL for the DEFENDANT
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Contents
TABLE OF CONTENTS.........................................................................................................2
LIST OF ABBREVATION.....................................................................................................4
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES.................................................................................................6
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION....................................................................................8
STATEMENT OF FACTS....................................................................................................9
ISSUES RAISED..................................................................................................................11
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS.........................................................................................12
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED...............................................................................................14
Page 2 of 22
Issue 1) WHETHER LAW OF ESTOPPEL WILL BE APPLIED IN THE PRESENT
CASE
1. The defendant mislead her age to the plaintiff.
2. The plaintiff did not know that the defendant was a minor.
Issue 2) CAN THE PRESENT CASE BE RATIFIED?
1. The defendant obtained undue benefit
2. The defendant, on attaining majority, promised to pay for the benefit received.
Issue 3) CAN COMPENSATION BE AWARDED TO THE PETITIONER UNDER
SECTION 65, 70 OF INDIAN CONTRACT ACT, 1872 AND UNDER SECTION
41 OF SPECIFIC RELIEF ACT, 1963?
1) Section 65 of the Indian Contract Act1 is applicable to minors as well who
misrepresents his age.
2) Section 702 deals with every person which includes minors also.
3) The plaintiff didn’t have any knowledge of the respondent’s minority.
4) The defendant had unjustly benefited at the cost of the plaintiff.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF........................................................................................................22
1
1872
2
Indian Contract Act, 1872
Page 3 of 22
LIST OF ABBREVATION
ABBREVATIONS MEANING
v. versus
Hon’ble honourable
P.C. Privy Council
p. Page no.
Q.B. Queen’s Bench
A.I.R. All India Reporter
Mad Madras
Page 4 of 22
S.C. Supreme Court
I.L.R. Indian Law Reports
Bom Bombay
Sec Section
L.R. Law Reports
Pat Patna
K.B. King’s Bench
I.A. Interlocutory Application
C.J. Chief Justice
Page 5 of 22
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
STATUTES
The Indian Contract Act, 1872.
Specific Relief Act, 1963
Indian Majority Act,1875
Indian Evidence Act, 1872
CASES
1. Mohori Bibee v. Dharmodas Ghose , (1903) 30 I.A. 114 (P.C.)
2. Nihalchand v. Mir Jan Mahomed Khan, A.I.R. 1937 Sind 310
3. Maganlal v. Raman Lal, 45 Bom. L.R. 761
4. Sindha v. Abrahim, I.L.R. (1895) 20 Bom. 755
5. State of West Bengal v. B.K. Mondal & Sons, A.I.R. 1962 S.C. 779
6. Chapple v. Cooper, (1844) 13 M. &W. 252 at p. 258
7. Jagon Ram v. Mahdeo Prasad Sahu, I.L.R. (1909) 36 Cal. 768 at p. 777
8. Kunwarlal v. Surajmal, AI.R. 1963 M.P. 58
9. Leslie v. Sheill (1914) 3 K.B. 607
10. Clyde Cycle Co. v. Hargreaves, (1898) 78 L.T. 296
11. Khan Gul v. Lakha Singh, A.I.R. 1928 Lahore 609
12. Stocke v. Wilson (1918) K.B. 235
Page 6 of 22
ARTICLES, COMMENTARIES & JOURNALS
Minor/ Minority and capacity to contract- An analysis, Alok Rudra, August 4, 2011
Contract with Minor: Time ripen for change or not, Arnavpkumar
[Link]
[Link]
Khan Gul v. Lakha Singh- Urwashi Ahuja, [Link]
singh/
BOOKS
INDIAN CONTRACT ACT – DR. R.K. BANGIA
CONTRACT AND SPECIFIC RELIEF – AVTAR SINGH
BARE ACT OF THE INDIAN CONTRACT ACT, 1872 - UNIVERSAL
WEBSITES
[Link]
[Link]
[Link]
[Link]
[Link]
[Link]
[Link]
SCC Online
Page 7 of 22
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
The respondent humbly submits this memorandum in response to the suit filed before this
Hon’ble court. The suit concerning “Compensation by a minor” is filed in the District Court
of Sonipat under :
CPC SECTION 15. Courts in which suit to be instituted
Every suit shall be instituted in the court of the lowest grade competent to try it.
Page 8 of 22
STATEMENT OF FACTS
1. Kanika Singh, the respondent, a sixteen year old renowned film star lives in Mumbai,
wanted a small party house and a swimming pool constructed in her backyard.
2. By misrepresenting that she is a major, she put the task out to a tender and accepted
the offer of Mr. Randeep (a building contractor) the plaintiff, who agreed to do the
work for Rs. 20,00,000/-
3. Both Kanika Singh and Randeep knew that this was an unrealistically low price
contract and the amount will be paid in instalments in order of the completion of
different phases of the assigned work.
4. Randeep, having completed the small party house began construction of the
swimming pool and ran out of money and materials for further construction.
Randeep told Kanika Singh that he could not complete the construction work unless
further amount was made available to him.
5. Kanika Singh had planned a poolside party to which she had invited top film directors
from whom she hoped to win new leading roles and was desperate to have the pool
completed as stipulated so she requested for the continuance of the construction
work and further requested Mr. Randeep to spend the remaining amount of Rs.
10,00,000/- on the work out of his own pocket and the money would be paid to him
when she secures her next contract.
6. The pool was completed; the party was a success and Kanika Singh was awarded the
starring role in the new movie named “Patharoon ke Saher Main”. Kanika Singh tells
Mr. Randeep, “Dear, you have saved my career. Don’t worry about Rs. 10,00,000/-”.
7. Mr. Randeep started a new project; whereas Kanika Singh’s new movie was a
complete flop. She then found herself unable to pay the amount of Rs. 10,00,000/-
to Mr. Randeep.
8. Mr. Randeep compelled Kanika Singh, a leading film actor, to render dance
performance in his party which he organized to invite rich people, relatives and
Page 9 of 22
friends in order to secure contracts regarding building construction, etc. and in return
he agreed to release Kanika Singh from paying the debts of Rs. 10,00,000/-.
Kanika Singh agreed on this point and was ready for the dance performance in the
party.
9. Before the party, Kanika suffered from a sprain due to over repetition of rehearsals.
Then she did not perform in Mr. Randeep’s party on the advice of the doctor.
10. On Kanika Singh’s eighteenth birthday, both the parties, on the humanitarian
grounds, decided to alter the contract. Kanika Singh acknowledged the debt taken
from Mr. Randeep for rendering the past services and further both agreed on the same
point that Kanika Singh would pay the debt through easy monthly instalments (EMIs)
of Rs.30,000/- per month till the repayment of the amount of Rs. 10,00,000/-.
11. Kanika Singh, later on, felt that some of the work done by [Link] was not
performed as she had specified. She further pointed out that the material used for
constructing the small party house and a swimming pool was not of the right kind.
She estimated that this would cost her Rs. 12,00,000/- only.
12. Kanika Singh then decided to dispose-off her property at the price of Rs. 25,00,000/-
without giving a single penny to Randeep.
13. When all this foul play came to the knowledge of Randeep, he tried to restrain
Kanika Singh by putting enormous pressure in order to recover his money
amounting to Rs. 10,00,000/- which he spent on the construction of small party house
and a swimming pool for Kanika Singh.
14. Randeep could not recover the debt from Kanika Singh even after a reasonably long
time. He gave a notice to Kanika Singh regarding payment of money within 15 days
but no reply was given by her on this matter.
15. In this context, Randeep finally decided to go to the court for seeking remedy in this
regard. The suit was then filed by Randeep on the ground that he had constructed the
small party house and a swimming pool as per the terms of the contract and has taken
all the diligent steps to recover the loan made available to Kanika Singh for Rs.
10,00,000/- but now she has refused to pay the said amount and hence the present
Page 10 of 22
suit.
Page 11 of 22
ISSUES RAISED
ISSUE I
WHETHER LAW OF ESTOPPEL WILL BE APPLIED IN THE PRESENT CASE
ISSUE II
CAN THE PRESENT CASE BE RATIFIED
ISSUE III
CAN COMPENSATION BE AWARDED TO THE PETITIONER UNDER
SECTION 65, 70 OF INDIAN CONTRACT ACT, 1872 AND UNDER SECTION 41
OF SPECIFIC RELIEF ACT, 1963
Page 12 of 22
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
Issue 1) WHETHER LAW OF ESTOPPEL WILL BE APPLIED IN THE PRESENT
CASE
It is humbly contended before the hon’ble Court that the defendant is guilty of the charges
under section 115 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 because:
1) The defendant mislead her age to the plaintiff.
2) The plaintiff did not know that the defendant was a minor.
Issue 2) CAN THE PRESENT CASE BE RATIFIED?
It is humbly contended before the Hon’ble Court that the defendant should be asked to ratify
the contract under the Indian Contract Act, 1872 because:
1) The defendant obtained undue benefit
2) The defendant, on attaining majority, promised to pay for the benefit received.
Issue 3) CAN COMPENSATION BE AWARDED TO THE PETITIONER UNDER
SECTION 65, 70 OF INDIAN CONTRACT ACT, 1872 AND UNDER SECTION
41 OF SPECIFIC RELIEF ACT, 1963?
Page 13 of 22
It is humbly contended before the Hon’ble Court that the defendant should be asked to
compensate the petitioner under section 65 and 70 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872
because:
1) Section 65 of the Indian Contract Act3 is applicable to minors as well who
misrepresents his age.
2) Section 704 deals with every person which includes minors also.
It is humbly contended before the Hon’ble Court that the defendant should be asked to
compensate the petitioner under section 41 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 because:
1) The plaintiff didn’t have any knowledge of the respondent’s minority.
2) The defendant had unjustly benefited at the cost of the plaintiff.
3
1872
4
Indian Contract Act, 1872
Page 14 of 22
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
Issue 1) WHETHER LAW OF ESTOPPEL WILL BE APPLIED IN THE PRESENT
CASE
It is humbly contended before the Hon’ble Court that the present appeal does provides
reasonable grounds to convict the accused under Sec 115 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872
It shall be initiated with following two arguments:
[1.1] The defendant mislead her age to the plaintiff.
[1.2] The plaintiff did not know that the defendant was a minor.
[1.1] The defendant mislead her age to the plaintiff.
The defendant, Ms. Kanika Singh, at the age of sixteen, by misrepresenting that she was a
major, invited tenders and accepted the offer of the plaintiff Mr. Randeep, for 20,00,000/-.
Therefore the plaintiff has submitted the pertinent case under law of estoppel, sec 115, Indian
Evidence Act5 as the law states that, “Where one person has by his declaration, act or
omission intentionally caused or permitted another person to believe a thing to be true, and
to act upon such belief, neither he nor his representatives shall be allwed in any suit or
proceeding between himself and such person or his representative to deny the truth of that
thing.”
5
1872
Page 15 of 22
According to the rule contained in Sec 115 6, if you make a statement today which misleads
another person, you are not allowed to deny the statement tomorrow when the question of
your liability arises. In the case of Mohori Bibee v. Dharmodas Ghose,7 the reason why the
Privy Council did not consider law of estoppel against the minor was because the state of
minority was known to the money-lender but in the pertinent case, the plaintiff had no
knowledge of the defendant’s minority.
[1.2] The plaintiff did not know that the defendant was a minor.
As stated earlier, the defendant had misrepresented her age and the plaintiff was not aware of
her real age. It was only after entering the agreement that he got to know of her minority. The
plaintiff had made diligent enquires regarding her status of majority but the defendant had
concealed her identity and no information was available on the internet. Also the defendant
paid through cheques, therefore there was no way to know her age except trusting the
respondant’s words.
Hence, law of estoppel as stated in sec 115, Indian Evidence Act is applicable to the present
case.
6
Indian Evidence Act, 1872
7
(1903) 30 I.A. 114 (P.C.)
Page 16 of 22
Issue 2) CAN THE DOCTRINE OF RESTITUTION BE APPLIED IN THE
PERTINENT CASE?
It is humbly contended before the Hon’ble Court that yes, the doctrine of restitution under the
Indian Contract Act, 1872 should be applied in the pertinent case. The arguments shall be
initiated with the following:
[2.1] The defendant obtained undue benefit
[2.2] The defendant, on attaining majority, promised to pay for the benefit received.
[2.1] The defendant obtained undue benefit
According to the English Law, if a minor has obtained undue benefit in any transaction, he is
required to restore back the exact same thing, so received by him, under the doctrine of
restitution. Here the court prevents the infant from retaining the benefit of what he has
obtained by reason of his fraud. In Khan Gul Gul v. Lakha Singh 8, the Court held the minor
liable to refund the money borrowed. With this judgment it can be interpreted that requiring a
minor to refund the money gained unjustly, did not amount to enactment of the contract.
Through this parties are tried to be put to the pre-contract position. Moreover under section
339, compensation in terms of money is also permitted. Hence, it is pleaded before the
Hon’able Court to keep in mind the above facts and order for monetary compensation. Similar
was held in Stocke v. Wilson10
8
A.I.R. 1928 Lahore 609
9
Specific Relief Act, 1963
10
(1918) K.B. 235
Page 17 of 22
[2.2] The defendant, on attaining majority, promised to pay for the benefit received.
On the defendant’s eighteenth birthday that is on attaining majority both the parties, had
decided to alter the contract. The respondant acknowledged the debt taken from the plainitff
for rendering the past services and had agreed to pay the debt through easy monthly
instalments (EMIs) of Rs.30,000/- per month till the repayment of the amount of Rs.
10,00,000/-, taken as loan.
Though a contract by a minor is void, it is quite competent for such a person to carry on the
transaction started during minority, even after attaining majority in such a way as to bind
himself for the whole transaction.11 In Nihalchand v. Mir Jan Mahomed Khan,12 it was held
that the plaintiff was entitled to enforce the transaction and recover the debt. Similar was held
in Maganlal v. Raman Lal,13 and Sindha v. Abrahim,14
11
Indian Contract Act, Dr. R.K. Bangia
12
A.I.R. 1937 Sind 310
13
45 Bom. L.R. 761
14
I.L.R. (1895) 20 Bom 755
Page 18 of 22
Issue 3) CAN COMPENSATION BE AWARDED TO THE PETITIONER UNDER
SECTION 65, 70 OF INDIAN CONTRACT ACT, 1872 AND UNDER SECTION 41 OF
SPECIFIC RELIEF ACT, 1963?
It is humbly contended before the Hon’ble Court that the defendant should be asked to
compensate the petitioner under section 65 and 70 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872
because:
1) Section 65 of the Indian Contract Act15 is applicable to minors as well who
misrepresents his age.
2) Section 7016 deals with every person which includes minors also.
It is humbly contended before the Hon’ble Court that the defendant should be asked to
compensate the petitioner under section 41 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 because:
1) The plaintiff didn’t have any knowledge of the respondent’s minority.
2) The defendant had unjustly benefited at the cost of the plaintiff.
This shall be initiated with the following arguments:
[3.1] Section 65 of the Indian Contract Act is applicable to minors as well who
misrepresents his age.
[3.2] Section 70 deals with every person which includes minors also.
[3.3] The plaintiff didn’t have any knowledge of the respondent’s minority.
[3.4] The defendant had unjustly benefited at the cost of the plaintiff.
15
1872
16
Indian Contract Act, 1872
Page 19 of 22
[3.1] Section 65 of the Indian Contract Act is applicable to minors as well who
misrepresents his age.
Section 65 of the Indian Contract act sates, “When an agreement is discovered to be void or
when a contract becomes void, any person who has received any advantage under such
agreement is bound to restore it, or to make such compensation for it, to the person from
who he received it.” The interpretation of this section in Mohori Bibee v. Dharmodas
Ghose,17 was held to be vague by the 13th Report on Indian Contract Act, 187218 by the
Law Commission of India. In their view sec 65 covers the case of minor, who makes false
representation that he is a major and such a minor should be asked to pay compensation.
They had recommended that an explanation must be added to sec 65 to give effect to their
opinion. Their opinion is as follows: “We feel that the Judicial Committee had not correctly
interpreted section 6519 and we are of the opinion that an agreement is ‘void’ ‘is discovered
to be void’ even though the invalidity arises by reason of the incompetency of the party to a
contract. We recommend that an explanation be added to section 65 to indicate that the sec
should be applicable where a minor enters into an agreement on the false representation
that he is a major.”
Therefore as per the Law Commission’s report, the plaintiff must be compensated under
section 65 of the Indian Contract Act.
[3.2] Section 70 deals with every person which includes minors also.
As per the section 70 of the Indian Contract Act20 which recognizes quasi contractual
liability and states that where a person lawfully does anything for another person, or
delivers anything to him, not intending to do so gratuitously and such other person enjoys
the benefit thereof, the latter is bound to make compensation to the former in respect of, or
to restore, the thing so done or delivered. This section was interpreted in State of West
Bengal v. B.K. Mondal & Sons21 that the minor is excluded from the operation of section
70 for the reason that his case has been separately provided for in sec 68.
17
(1903) 30 I.A. 114(P.C.)
18
1958, P. 20
19
Indian Contract Act, 1872
20
1872
21
A.I.R. 1962 S.C. 779
Page 20 of 22
It is submitted that the above stated interpretation is neither logical nor in consonance with
the provision contained in section 70. Section 70 deals with every “person” which would
include a minor, and moreover there is nothing in the Indian Contract Act, which prevents
the case of a minor being covered both under section 68 and 70 of the Act.22
As per the section 68 of the Indian Contract Act23, necessaries supplied to a minor,
reimbursement is permitted to the person supplying such necessaries due to quasi- contractual
obligations. Section 68 states that, ““If a person incapable of contracting, or any one whom
he is legally bound to support, is supplied by another person with necessaries suited to his
condition in life, the person who has furnished such supplies is entitled to be reimbursed from
the property of such incapable person.”
Now the question arises that the service provided to the minor the defendant was a necessary
or not? To answer that it is very important to understand that the necessaries supplied to the
minor should be suited to his life conditions. It does not mean bare necessities of life, but
means such things as may be necessary to maintain a person according to his condition in life.
Alderson B had explained the position of necessaries in Chapple v. Cooper24 where he
mentions that the subject- matter and extent of the contract nay vary according to the state and
condition of the infant. In Jagon Ram v. Mahadeo Prasad Sahu25 also, it was held that the
necessaries may depend on the staus of the person and also his requirement at the time of
actual delivery of goods. The same had been emphasized in Clyde Cycle Co. v. Hargreaves26
and Kunwarlal v. Surajmal27.
Since the defendant is an actress, building of a party house and a swimming pool should be
considered as a necessity for her as she herself had stated that this construction was necessary
in order to gain new leading roles in the party she had to host near the pool. By the non-
payment of the consideration we also get to know that she didn’t have enough money and thus
was in a desperate in need of a role in a film.
Therefore the construction was a necessity for her and by constructing the party house and
swimming pool, the plaintiff had supplied necessaries to the defendant, hence he must be
compensated.
22
Indian Contract Act, 1872
23
1872
24
(1844) 13 M. &W. 252 at p. 258
25
I.L.R. (1909) 36 Cal. 768 at p. 777
26
(1898) 78 L.T. 296
27
A.I.R. 1963 M.P.
Page 21 of 22
[3.3] The plaintiff didn’t have any knowledge of the respondent’s minority.
As per the section 4128 “On adjudicating the cancellation of an instrument, the court may
require the party to whom such relief is granted to make any compensation to the other which
justice may require.” In the Mohori Bibee Case, the petitioner was not compensated under
sec 41 due to the fact that he had the full knowledge of the infancy but in the pertinent case, as
explained above, had no knowledge of the infancy before entering the agreement. In Khan
Gul v. Lakha Singh29, the minor was asked to refund the sum borrowed. Sir Shadi Lal C.J.
made a liberal interpretation of the above stated statute. In his views, the other party deserves
to be compensated by a fraudulent minor, irrespective of the fact that the minor is the plaintiff
or a defendant.
[3.4] The defendant had unjustly benefited at the cost of the plaintiff.
Ms. Kanika Singh had got her party house and swimming pool made without paying for the
services rendered by the petitioner, Mr. Randeep. This is an unjust enrichment which the
respondent received at the cost of the plaintiff as he had to pay for the remaining amount.
According to the facts in the present case, asking a minor to return the ill-gotten gain in the
form of money is not the enforcement of contract, but it is only the restoration of the pre-
contract position. The relief should be allowed not because there is a valid contract between
the parties, but it should be because there is no contract but one party has unjustly benefited
at the cost of the other. The Lahore Judgment was in favour of permitting an action against
a fraudulent minor irrespective of the fact whether he is the plaintiff or defendant.
On the recommendation of the Law Commission, The principle of compensation was
incorporated in section 33, Specific Relief Act, 1963, which deals with powers to require
benefit to be restored or compensated when the instrument is cancelled or is successfully
resisted as being void or voidable. This provision makes the decision laid down in Leslie v.
Sheill30 inapplicable in India and allows compensation to be monetary.
Thus the petitioner must be compensated to restore a pre-contractual position.
28
Specific Relief Act, 1877
29
A.I.R. 1928 Lahore 609
30
(1914) 3 K.B. 607
Page 22 of 22
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
Wherefore it is prayed, in the light of issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited,
that the Hon’ble District Court of Sonipat may be pleased to:
1. HOLD, Ms. Kanika Singh guilty for the charges of estoppel under Section 115 of
the Indian Contract Act.31
2. Uphold doctrine of restitution and allow monetary refund.
3. Make the respondent compensate the plaintiff under section 65 and 7032 and
section 41 of the Specific Relief Act33.
The court may be please to pass any other decree, which the court may deem fit in the light of
justice, equity, and good conscience.
All of which is humbly and respectfully submitted.
31
1872
32
Indian Contract Act, 1872
33
1963
Page 23 of 22
