Scribd
Upload
27 views

(Minor Agreements) Facts

An agent of the defendant loaned money to the plaintiff, knowing the plaintiff was a minor and unable to legally enter into a contract. The plaintiff sued to have the mortgage on his property securing the loan declared void under sections 2, 10 and 11 of the Indian Contract Act. The Supreme Court held that unless both parties are competent to contract under section 11, there is no valid contract under section 10 and it is void under section 2. As a minor is not competent to contract under section 11, any agreement entered into by a minor is void from the inception. Therefore, the mortgage taken by the minor plaintiff was void.

Uploaded by

HarmanSingh
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
27 views

(Minor Agreements) Facts

An agent of the defendant loaned money to the plaintiff, knowing the plaintiff was a minor and unable to legally enter into a contract. The plaintiff sued to have the mortgage on his property securing the loan declared void under sections 2, 10 and 11 of the Indian Contract Act. The Supreme Court held that unless both parties are competent to contract under section 11, there is no valid contract under section 10 and it is void under section 2. As a minor is not competent to contract under section 11, any agreement entered into by a minor is void from the inception. Therefore, the mortgage taken by the minor plaintiff was void.

Uploaded by

HarmanSingh
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

(Minor Agreements)

FACTS:
Agent of defendant advanced money to plaintiff, an infant, fully knowing his incompetency to contract,
against mortgage of property belonging to latter. Plaintiff commenced this action to get the mortgage
declared as void u/s 2, 10 and 11 of ICA and repossession of property thereunder conveyed to defendant.
ISSUES:

Whether the mortgage was void u/s 2, 10, 11 of ICA?

Whether plaintiff to return the money received by him under such mortgage?

HELD:
Laying emphasis on true literal construction of Indian Contract Act, notwithstanding the rules as to
enforceability of contracts entered into by minors, Supreme Court held that unless the parties are
competent to contract as u/s 11, no agreement is contract as u/s 10 and hence, is not enforceable by law
u/s 2(h) and is void u/s 2(g). Since minor is not competent to contract u/s 11, hence every such
agreement entered into by a minor is void ab initio (void from the very inception). Even u/s 68, a minor is
deemed as incompetent to contract and is not to be personally liable for any necessaries supplied to him,
albeit a statutory claim is created against his property.
Authors Comment: Quite controversially, Supreme Court observed, S.65 like S.64, starts from
the basis of there being an agreement or contract between the competent parties and has no
application to a case in which there never was and never could have been any contract.

You might also like