NORTHCAP UNIVERSITY,GURGAON

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE DISTRICT COURT OF HARIDWAR

CIVIL APPEAL NO.______ OF 2020

IN THE MATTER OF

MR KHANNA ……………………………………………...... (PETITIONER )

VERSUS

MEENAKSHI …………………………………………………...(RESPONDENT)

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON THE BEHALF OF RESPONDANT

NAME:PARTH ARORA

ROLL NUMBER: 15LLB043

PH.NO. : 7906325731

1
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
 STATEMENT OF FACTS
 STATEMENT OF ISSUES
 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
 ARGUMENT ADVANCED
 PRAYER

TABLE OF ABBREVIATION AND SYMBOLS

ABBREVIATION FULLFORM
NO. NUMBER
SEC. SECTION
& AND
ART ARTICLE
ICA INDIAN CONTRACT ACT
CPC CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE
IEA INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT
SRA SPECEFIC RELIEF ACT 1963
v. Versus
AIR All india reporter
Hon’ble Honourable

2
Dc Ditrict court
Govt Government
No. Number
i.e That is
Ors Others

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

INDIAN CASES:

 Mohirii Bibi v. Dharmadas Gosh .

 Ram Ashish Chaudhary v. State of Uttar Pradesh
 Raghava Chariar v. Shrinivas
 Sharafat Ali v. Noor Mohd
 Indran Ramashwari v. Anthappa Chettiar

WEBSITES:

 www.manupatrafast.com
 www.scconline.com
 www.bombayhighcourt.nic.in

STATUES REFERRED:

 INDIAN CONTRACT ACT

 INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT
 CPC
 SPECEFIC RELIEF ACT
 MAJIORITY ACT 1875

3
 STATEMENT OF FACTS

1.Respondent (Meenakshi), a renowned pop singer of sixteen years, wanted a

small party hall and a swimming pool equipped with Jacuzzi constructed at the
back of her bungalow and Petitioner (MR. Khanna) is the building contractor.

2. Respondent put the task out to tender and accepted the offer of Petitioner, a
building contractor, who agreed to do the work for Rs. 50,000/-.

3. Both Respondent and Petitioner knew that this was an unrealistically low price
contract and the amount will be paid in installments in order for the completion of
different phases of the assigned work.

4. Petitioner had completed the small party hall and started the construction of the
Swimming pool and ran out of money and materials for further construction.
Petitioner told Respondent that he could not complete the construction unless
further capital was made available to him.

5. Later, respondent had arranged a party to which she had invited top music
directors from whom she hoped to win new leading playback contracts and was
desperate to have the party hall completed as stipulated. She requested for the
continuance of the constructionWork.

6. The party hall was completed; the party was a success and Respondent was
awarded a playback in the new movie named “Tum se hai Dosti”. Respondent tells
Petitioner,
“Darling, you have saved my career. Don’t worry about Rs. 2,00,000/-.” Petitioner
started
a new project.

7. Petitioner compelled respondent , to perform in his party which he organized to

invite rich people, relatives and friends in order to secure contracts regarding
building construction, etc. and in return he agreed to release Respondent from
paying the debts of Rs.2,00,000/-.

8. Real Estate was blooming in the economic market so Petitioner realized that Rs.
50000 was too less for constructing a swimming pool and a party hall and he
demanded Rs. 200000 more saying that the initial contract of 50,000 was an
insufficient consideration.

4
9. Respondent agreed to perform in the party but before the party, she suffered
from a sprain due to over repetition of rehearsals. Then she did not perform in
Petitioner party on the advice of the doctor.

10. On Respondent eighteenth birthday, both the parties, on the humanitarian

ground, decided to alter the contract. Respondent acknowledged the debt taken
from Petitioner for rendering the past services and further both agreed on the same
point that Respondent would pay the debt through easy monthly instalments
(EMIs) of Rs.10,000/- per month.

11. Respondent, later on, felt that some of the work done by Petitioner was not
performed as she had specified. She further pointed out that the material used for
constructing the small party hall and a swimming pool was not of the right quality.
She estimated that this would cost her Rs.1,50000 /- only.

12. Petitioner tried to restrain Respondent by putting enormous pressure in order

to recover his money amounting to Rs.4,50,000 which he had spent on the
construction of small party hall and a swimming pool for Respondent .

13. Petitioner gave a notice to Respondent regarding payment of money within 15

days but no reply was given by her on this matter.

14. Petitioner finally decided to go to the court for seeking remedy in this regard.
The suit was then filed by petitioner on the ground that he had constructed the
small party hall and a swimming pool as per the terms of the contract.

5
 ISSUE RAISED:

 Whether the contract is Valid , void , void ab initio, Is a

minor liable for breach of a contact?

 Whether a minor can be asked to pay compensation under

section 65 of ICA?

 Whether the rectification in a contract can be done by

minor or not?

6
 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS :
ISSUE 1:

Whether the contract is Valid , void , void ab initio, Is a minor liable for breach of
a contract?

 An agreement made with Meenkashi/Respondant is void ab initio ie., void

from the very beginning. Any agreement made with a minor is not at all a
contract. It is an agreement which does not legal effect in court of law. It
means it is not enforceable in court of Law .Those agreements are call void
agreements. In other words it would not enjoy the legal effect.
 Respondant is not fulfilling the essentials of a contract hence the contract
is void ab initio. Respondant is not liable for breach of contract as at the
time of contract she was minor , section 11 of ICA says the contract by
minor/ respondant is void ab initio.

ISSUE 2 :

Whether a minor can be asked to pay compensation under section 65 of ICA?

 Meenakshi /respondant cannot be asked to pay the compensation as The

court held in mohiri bibi1case that unless the parties have competence under
Section 11 of the Act, no agreement is a contract. These agreements were
considered to be nullity and non-existent in the eyes of law as per the section
11.
 In Mohiri Bibi case , Privy Council did not recognise Section 65 of Indian
Contract Act, Section of 115 of Indian Evidence Act and Section 41 of
Specific Relief Act.

ISSUE 3:

Whether the alteration in a contract can be done by minor or not?

 Respondant/minor agreements are void ab initio. It is incapable of being

validated by a subsequent ratification after the minor has attained the age of
majority.

1
( 1903) 30 LA 114 (PC)

7
  Meenakshi cannot be held liable as legally ratify an act done on his behalf
because of whole question or ratification is based on the assumption that
authority could have been conferred by the person ratifying the acts at the
date when acts were performed as said under the judgment of Tukaram v.
Madhaorao

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

ISSUE 1:

Whether the contract is Valid , void , void ab initio, Is a minor liable for breach of
a contact?

The Answer to the above question is an impregnable positive.

 An agreement made with Meenkashi/Respondant is void ab initio ie., void

from the very beginning. Any agreement made with a minor is not at all a
contract. It is an agreement which does not legal effect in court of law. It
means it is not enforceable in court of Law .Those agreements are call void
agreements. In other words it would not enjoy the legal effect.

 Respondant is not fulfilling the essentials of a contract hence the contract is

void ab initio.

 Meenakshi is not competent to contract or make any agreement as a minor

lacks mental capacity because of age factor.

 The age of majority is defined in Section 3 of Indian Majority Act, 1857.

 Section 10 spells for a contract parties must be competent, the consent must
be free. Therefore the competency of the parties to a contract is most
essentials ingredients of a contract, Respondant being a minor is not
competent , the contract is void ab initio.

 Section 11 in The Indian Contract Act, 1872

Who are competent to contract.—Every person is competent to contract who
is of the age of majority according to the law to which he is subject,1 and

8
 who is of sound mind and is not disqualified from contracting by any law to
which he is subject. —Every person is competent to contract who is of the
age of majority according to the law to which he is subject,1 and who is of
sound mind and is not disqualified from contracting by any law to which he
is subject.

 Respondant is not liable for breach of contract as at the time of contract she
was minor , section 11 of ICA says the contract by minor/ respondant is
void ab initio.
 Respondant cannot be held guilty of breach of contract as she was minor at
the time of contract.
 Minors’ agreements are absolutely void and it was observed in Privy
Council Judgment in the land mark case of Mohirii Bibi v. Dharmadas
Gosh .2
 Section 11 of ICA , which spells a minor is a person who has not attained
the age of 18 years. The age of majority is defined in Section 3 of Indian
Majority Act, 1857
 In the case of Ram Ashish Chaudhary v. State of Uttar Pradesh3 by an
agreement, a person was appointed as a teacher. But he was a minor at the
time of agreement. The Court held that the agreement was void ab initio due
to minority of the person appointed, in the light of section 11 of Indian
Contract Act and Mohori Bibi‟s case.
 In the case of Raghava Chariar v. Shrinivas4 , a mortgage was enforced on
behalf of a minor who had advanced a sum of money for which the
mortgage has been executed in his favour.
 In the case of Sharafat Ali v. Noor Mohd 5, a promissory note executed in
favour of a minor. Subsequently, the drawer refused to honour the note on
the ground that it being drawn in favour of a minor was void. Held, that the
contract was for the benefit of the minor and he can enforce it
 In Indran Ramashwari v. Anthappa Chettiar6, has held that a promissory
note given by a person on attaining majority in consideration for the one
executed during minority is void, for want of valid consideration.

2
(1903) 30 LA 114 (PC)
3
(2003) All. LJ.330
4
12. (1917) 40 Mad.308.
5
. AIR 1924 Rang. 136.
6

9
ISSUE 2 :

 Whether a minor can be asked to pay compensation under section

65 of ICA?

The Answer to the above question is an impregnable positive.

 Meenakshi /respondant cannot be asked to pay the compensation as The

court held in mohiri bibi7case that unless the parties have competence under
Section 11 of the Act, no agreement is a contract. These agreements were
considered to be nullity and non-existent in the eyes of law as per the section
11
 In Mohiri Bibi case , Privy Council did not recognise Section 65 of Indian
Contract Act, Section of 115 of Indian Evidence Act and Section 41 of
Specific Relief Act.
 Section 65 says any person who has received any advantage under such
agreement or contract is bound to restore, it, or to make compensation for it,
to the person from whom he received it when a person fraudulently represent
himself or herself as a major. Here any person includes minor.
 Law Commission of India under 13th Report to the Indian Contract Act
made suggestion to amend this section 65. But in Mohiri Bibi case where
Privy Council has observed that Section 65 could not be attracted to the
minors.
 Respondant/Meenkashi cannot be asked to pay under section 65 as per
judgment of under shown judgements .
 In the case of Ram Ashish Chaudhary v. State of Uttar Pradesh8 by an
agreement, a person was appointed as a teacher. But he was a minor at the
time of agreement. The Court held that the agreement was void ab initio due
to minority of the person appointed, in the light of section 11 of Indian
Contract Act and Mohori Bibi‟s case .

 In the case of Sharafat Ali v. Noor Mohd9 , a promissory note executed in

favour of a minor. Subsequently, the drawer refused to honour the note on
the ground that it being drawn in favour of a minor was void. Held, that the
contract was for the benefit of the minor and he can enforce it.

7
( 1903) 30 LA 114 (PC)
8
(2003) All. LJ.330
9
. AIR 1924 Rang. 136.

10
  In the case of Raghava Chariar v. Shrinivas 10 , a mortgage was enforced
on behalf of a minor who had advanced a sum of money for which the
mortgage has been executed in his favour.

 Further more, the Respondant has not in any way commited the offence of
breach of contract as mentioned under section 11 and section 65 of ICA.

10
12. (1917) 40 Mad.308

11
ISSUE 3: Whether the alteration in a contract can be done by
minor or not?
The Answer to the above question is an impregnable positive.

 Respondant/minor agreements are void ab initio. It is incapable of being

validated by a subsequent ratification after the minor has attained the age of
majority.
 Meenakshi cannot legally ratify an act done on his behalf because of whole
question or ratification is based on the assumption that authority could have
been conferred by the person ratifying the acts at the date when acts were
performed as said under the judgment of Tukaram v. Madhaorao11

 In the case of Nazir Ahmed v. Jiwandas12 , if the parties to a contract void

due to the minority of a party are interested, they can draw up a fresh
contract after the party attains majority. The new contract will require new
consideration. The consideration given under the earlier but void contract
cannot serve as consideration in the new contract entered into after attaining
majority. It means after attaining majority there should be some
consideration then only the contract becomes valid contract and that contract
is enforceable in the court of law.
 In the case of Indran Ramaswamy v. Anthiappa Chettiar13 , a minor
borrows money and executes promissory note. After attaining majority, he
executed another promissory note in settlement of first note without
consideration or without fresh consideration. The second note is void for
want of consideration.
 In the case of Smt. M.C. Nagalakshmi and Ors. v. Sri. M.A. Farook and Sri.
M.A.14, a person when minor executed a deed with regard to his interest in
the estate. A suit was filed when he had attained majority. The person
admitted the agreement and did not repudiate it. It was held that the contract
was enforceable to the extent of the minor’s interest in the estate.
 There is no estoppel against the Respondant as when a minor fraudulently
enters into a contract, representing that he is a major, but in reality he is not,
then later on he/she can plead his/her minority as a defence and cannot be
stopped /prevented from doing so as the judgments given by hon’able court

11
AIR 1948 Nag. 293, at p. 295.
12

13

14

12
  In case of Nawab Sadiq Ali Khan v. Jai Kishori15 , it was held by Privy
Council that if a minor makes a contract by fraudulently expressing his age
more than actual then he cannot be stopped as per the rules of estoppels that
he was minor at the time of contract.
 In the case of Vaikuntarama Pillai v. Authimoolam Chettiar16 , there is a
clear statutory provisions that a minor being incompetent to contract is
incapable of incurring any liability for any debt, the law of estoppels cannot
over rule this provision to make him liable was observed by Madras High
Court. In the other words money was obtained by a minor misrepresenting
his age, that amounted to a fraud and he might be made to refund it, but, in
the absence of fraud, refund could not be ordered .

 In the case of Khan Gul v. Lakha Singh17 , the law of estoppel does not
apply against a minor was observed by Lahore High Court.

 In the case of Gadigeppa v. Balangowoda , followed Vaikuntarama Pilli

case decision of the Madras High Court.

 In Lakhwinder Singh v. Paramji Kaur , the respondent a daughter of Mr.

Avtar Singh, who was deceased, inherited a part of his land property. While
minor, she executed Power of Attorney in favour of her month Smt. Rattan
Kaur, who executed a sale deed of land belonging to her daughter in favour
of defendant/appellant. Finding that respondent was a minor at the time of
execution of Power of attorney of her mother obtained specific permission
from the District Court, sale of land share by the mother was held void.

 In case of Kartar Singh v. Harbans Singh18, held that the transferee must
make all reasonable and diligent enquiries regarding the capacity of the
transferor and the necessity to alienate the estate of the minor.

PRAYER
15

16

17

18

13
WHEREFORE IN THE LIGHT OF THE ISSUES RAISED, ARGUMENTS
ADVANCED AND AUTHORITIES CITED, IT IS HUMBLY PRAYED THAT
THIS HON‟BLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO:

1. That the suit should be dismissed with no cost.

AND/OR PASS ANY OTHER ORDER, DIRECTION, OR RELIEF THAT THIS

HON‟BLE COURT MAY DEEM FIT IN THE INTERESTS OF JUSTICE,
EQUITY AND GOOD CONSCIENCE, FOR WHICH THE RESPONDANT
SHALL IN DUTY BOUND, FOREVER PRAY.

COUNSEL ON THE BEHALF OF RESPONDANT:

PARTH ARORA

14