Q1) Positions of minors under Indian Contract act 1872.

Ans: according to the Indian contract act 1872, in order to form a valid
contract, one of the essential requirements is that the parties must be
competent to contract. Competence to contract is defined in section 11 of the
Indian Contract act. Section 11 lays down the following requirements
a) he must have attained the age of majority according to the law to which
he is subject
b) he must be of sound mind
c) he must not be disqualified from contracting by any law to which he is
subject.
Therefore, according to section 11 of the act, Minors are not allowed to enter
into a contract. However, neither section 10 nor section 11 makes it clear
whether, if a minor enters into an agreement, it would be voidable or
altogether void. This issue was only resolved in 1903 in the case of Mohori
Bibee vs Dhurmodas Ghose. a minor, mortgaged his house for Rs. 20,000 to a
money lender. At the time of the contract the legal representative, who acted
on behalf of the moneylender was aware that the party was a minor. The
minor brought a suit against the moneylender stating that he was a minor at
the time of the contract and, therefore, the contract was void. The Privy
Council by clearing the air in the above case said that the minor’s agreement is
void ab initio i.e. void from the beginning. The general belief that “every man is
the best judge of his own interest” is excluded in the case of a minor.
A minor’s agreement is considered void thus, there should be no duty
to perform any part of the contract from either party and the effects of the
same are also void. Consequently, all the effects of a minor’s agreement must
be worked out independently of any contract.
1) No estoppel against minor: The principle of estoppel doesn’t apply to
minors. As per this principle, when one person intentionally causes or
permits another person to believe a thing to be true and to act upon
such belief, neither he nor his representatives can deny the truth of that
thing in any suit or proceeding between himself and such person or
representative. However, the question arises as to whether the law of
estoppel can be invoked against minors. In the case of Jagar Nath Singh
v. Lalta Prasad, the court held that the law of estoppel cannot be used
to validate a void agreement. The policy fo the law of contract is to
protect persons below age of majority from contractual liability and
naturally the doctrine of estoppel cannot be used to defeat that policy.
2) Doctrine of restitution: if an infant obtains property or goods by
misrepresenting his age, he can be compelled to restore it but only so
long as the same is traceable in his possession. However, if the minor
has already sold or converted the property or goods into cash, they
cannot be asked to refund the same. This principle was established in
the case of Leslie (R) Ltd v. Sheill. in this case, an infant succeeded in
deceiving some money lenders by telling them a lie about his age and
got them to lend him £400 on the faith of his being an adult. The money
lenders attempt to recover the principal and interest as damages for
fraud failed. Consequently, the money lenders relied upon the doctrine
of restitution but the court held that since the money was spent by the
defendant, there was neither any possibility of tracing it nor any
possibility of restoring the thing got by fraud, for if the court will ask
defendant to pay the equivalent sum as that of loan received, it would
amount to enforcing a void contract.
However, where an infant invokes the aid of the court for the
cancellation of his contract, the court may grant the relief subject to the
condition that he shall restore all benefits obtained by him under the
contract or make suitable compensation to the other party. A good
example of this playing out can be seen in Jagar Nath Singh v. Lalta
Prasad where a minor was allowed to recover possession of property
sold by him only subject to the condition that he restored the
consideration.
3) No liability in contract or in tort arising out of the context: When a minor
enters into an agreement, it is void from the beginning and does not
create any legal obligations for the parties involved. As a result, a minor
cannot be held responsible for breaching their promises or for any
tortuous acts arising from the agreement.
it is to be noted that a minor cannot be held liable for anything which
would indirectly enforce his agreement. It has been established
in Harimohan v. Dulu Miya that a minor cannot be held liable in tort for
money lent on a bond. The Calcutta High Court further explained that if
the tort is directly connected to the contract and is a part of the same
transaction, the minor cannot be held liable in tort. However, when the
tort committed is free from the contract and which is not directly
connected with the contract, the fact that a contract is also involved will
not release the minor from his liabilities.
Contracts for necessaries are an exception to the voidability of a minor’s
agreement. Necessaries refer to goods or services that are essential for the
minor’s survival and well-being. Section 68 provides that if a person incapable
of entering into a contract, 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. Another
exception to this rule are beneficial contracts. Minors are allowed to enforce a
contract which is of some benefit to him and under which he is required to
bear no obligation. Thus, in Raghava Chariar v. Srinivasa, the court held that If
a minor has advanced mortgage money and there is a mortgage in his favour,
he can sue for enforcement of the contract. Other examples of beneficial
contract include: contracts of marriage or marriage of Muslim minor girl,
contracts of apprenticeship are all considered under beneficial contracts.