Scribd
Upload
69 views4 pages

Khan Gul V - S Lakha Singh (Lahore 1928)

This case involved a minor, Khan Gul, who intentionally misrepresented his age and entered into a contract to sell property to Lakha Singh. After receiving partial payment, Khan Gul refused to transfer the property. The court found that as a minor, Khan Gul's contract was void. However, it also applied the doctrine of restitution to return the parties to their pre-contract positions, requiring Khan Gul to repay the money received while being relieved of other obligations. This balanced upholding the minor's legal incapacity to contract with fairness given the intentional deception.

Uploaded by

GAURAV YADAV
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
69 views4 pages

Khan Gul V - S Lakha Singh (Lahore 1928)

This case involved a minor, Khan Gul, who intentionally misrepresented his age and entered into a contract to sell property to Lakha Singh. After receiving partial payment, Khan Gul refused to transfer the property. The court found that as a minor, Khan Gul's contract was void. However, it also applied the doctrine of restitution to return the parties to their pre-contract positions, requiring Khan Gul to repay the money received while being relieved of other obligations. This balanced upholding the minor's legal incapacity to contract with fairness given the intentional deception.

Uploaded by

GAURAV YADAV
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 4

Business Law (7791)

Case Law : Khan Gul V/S Lakha Singh (Lahore 1928)

Submitted to : Ms. Shreya Goswami

Submitted by: Janvi Pabbi (210010301031)


Khan Gul V/S Lakha Singh (Lahore 1928)
Introduction

Khan Gul vs Lakha Singh The "Equitable Jurisdiction" in question in this case was originally
based on a number of equity principles, and its objective was to offer individuals just and
reasonable remedies while taking into account the intentions of both parties. Because of this, the
court departed from the accepted view and held that when a minor intentionally presents as a
"adult" and enters a contract, it would be fair and reasonable to exercise its equitable jurisdiction
and apply the principle of restitution. It is established law that a minor's agreement is void, and
the principle of restitution is not applicable in such circumstances.

Facts of the Case:

In tis case, Khan Gul is a minor who intentionally present himself as an adult in front of Lakha
Singh during the contract and sell his property to Lakha Singh. However after the set of payment
done by Lakha Singh where remaining amount is pending , Khan Gul refused to give the
possession of the property after receiving the money.

Arguments , Petitioner and Respondent

1. In this case, defendant 1 negotiated to sell a piece of property to plaintiff while he was
still a minor fraudulently concealing his age.

2. He received Rs. 17,500 as payment, the plaintiffs paid the Sub-Registrar Rs. 8,000 in
cash, and the remaining Rs. 9,500 was covered by a promissory note that was payable on
demand. The plaintiffs argued that because the promissory note for Rs. 9,500 in favour of
defendant 1 was discharged by another promissory note issued by the plaintiff in favour
of the defendant's brother-in-law Muhammad Hussain at the defendant's request,
defendant 1 was lawfully paid Rs. 17,500.

3. The plaintiffs also stated that they had paid Muhammad Hussain Rs. 5,500 of the Rs.
9,500 and were prepared to pay the remaining Rs. soon after getting.

4. The defendant refused to transfer ownership of the property after receiving the
money.The plaintiffs asked that possession of the property sold be given to them or that a
judgement for Rs. 17,500, the consideration money, be issued along with interest or
damages resulting from contract breach at the rate of 1% per mensem, totaling Rs. 1,050,
or for Rs. 19,000 in total, might be passed against defendant 1's property.

Judgements:
The Lahore court made the following judgements with the bench of members.

BENCH
Sir Shadi Lal C.J, Justice Broadway, Justice Harrison, Justice Tek Chand

1. Prior to 1903, there was an abundance of debate over a minor's competence to enter into a
contract and whether or not a minor's contract was voidable.However, their Lordships'
Privy Council's presiding in Mohori Bibee v. Dharmodas Ghose, which states that a
person who is incapable of entering into a contract because of infancy, as described by
Section 11 of the Contract Act, cannot do so, eliminates all doubt on the matter. The deal
that was made is illegal.
2. The ability to enter into a contract is governed by the law of contracts, which is focused
on a particular object since it is a well-established concept, but the law of estoppel is a
universal rule that applies to everyone
3. In India, not only the High Court of Calcutta but also the High Courts of Madras,
Allahabad, and Patna have accepted the rule against applying the principle of estoppel to
a contract void on the grounds of infancy.
4. The court held that despite Section 115, The Evidence Act is broad in scope and must be
read in conjunction with the Contract Act, which declares a transaction entered into by a
minor invalid, and that the balance of court authority in India is decisively in favour of
the rule that if an infant had persuaded a person to contract with him by the false
representation that he was of full age, he is not estopped from pleading his immaturity in
avoidance of the contract.
5. Second, fair accountability results from a child's deceptive claim that he was of legal age.
The Court may, in the exercise of its fair authority, put the parties back in the situation
they were in before the contract's effective date while relieving him of its consequences
(Doctrine of Restitution).
6. Despite not being liable under the terms of the contract, Harrison J. stated in dissent that a
minor who entered into a contract by misrepresenting his age may still be required to
repay the benefit received, whether he is a defendant or a plaintiff.

You might also like