BBA. LL.

B 5 YEARS PROGRAMME

GITARATTAN INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS

SCHOOL
MOOT COURT PROBLEM -06

IN THE HON’BLE COURT OF DISTRICT JUDGE

AT
DELHI

IN CIVIL SUIT NO.___________2018

MR. KUMAR
…PLAINTIFF

V.

MR. ARUN (A MINOR)

THROUGH MR.ABC GUARDIAN
…DEFENDANT

MEMORIAL FOR THE DEFENDANT

MEMORIAL FOR THE DEFENDANT

 THE TABLE OF CONTENTS

The Table of Contents ...................................................................................................... I

The Index of Authorities ................................................................................................. 1
list of abbreviations ......................................................................................................... 3
The Statement of Jurisdiction ......................................................................................... 5
The Statement of Issues ................................................................................................... 6
The Summary of Arguments ........................................................................................... 7
The Arguments Advanced ............................................................................................... 8
A. Mr. Arun is competent to contract or not ............................................................. 8
That Mr. Arun is a minor......................................................................................... 8
Minor’s Competence to Contract ........................................................................... 10
B. Mr. Arun is entitled to restore the benefit, he had under the contract or not ? .... 11
Amount to be given to Mr. Kumar......................................................................... 13
The Prayer.................................................................................................................... 15

MEMORIAL FOR THE DEFENDANT

 THE INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

STATUTORY COMPILATIONS
1. THE INDIAN CONTRACT ACT, 1872.
2. THE INDIAN MAJORITY ACT, 1875.

REFERENCES
1. BRYAN A. GARNER, BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY,
2. P. RAMANATHA AIYER, THE LAW LEXICON,
3. OXFORD ENGLISH DICTIONARY,
4. WEBSTER’S NEW INTERNATIONAL DICTIONARY.

WEBSITES
1. www.judis.nic.in.
2. www.manupatra.com.
3. www.supremecourtcaselaw.com

BOOKS
1. Aiyer, Ramanatha, P., The Law Lexicon, New Delhi: Wadhwa and Company.
2. H.R. Saharay, Dutt on Contract, Wastern Law House, New Delhi.
3. Mallick, Indian Contract Act, Kamal Law House, Kolkata.
4. Sanjiva Row’s Commentary on The Indian Contract Act, 1872 and Tenders, Delhi Law
House, Delhi.
5. T.R. Desai, Law relating to Tenders and Government Contracts, Universal Law
Publications, New Delhi.

Page | 1
MEMORIAL FOR THE DEFENDANT
 TABLE OF CASES

 BANK OF RAJASTHAN LTD. V/S SH. PALA RAM GUPTA AIR 2001 DEL.58...........

 DADASAHEB DASRATHRAO V. BAI NAHANI 19 BOM. L.R. 561...........................

 Kashiba v. Shripat (1894) 19 Bom 697…………………………………...........14

 KHAN GUL V. LAKHA SINGH AIR 1928 LAH. 609..............................................

 LESLIE LTD. V. SHEILL (1914) 3 K.B. 607........................................................

 Latcharao v. Viswanadham , AIR 1956 AP…………………………..........….15

 MAHINDER SYEDOL ARIFFIN V. YEOH ROI GARK(1916) 2 A.C.575....................

 Rajubala Dasi v. Nidhurama Pandit AIR 1960 Cal 65………...……............15

 Ritesh Aggarwal v. SEBI, (2008), 8 SCC 205…….....………………….........15

 VIRENDER SINGH V/S LAXMI NARAIN (2007) BC 530.......................................

Page | 2
MEMORIAL FOR THE DEFENDANT
 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

AIR All India Reporter

K.B. King Bench
Bom. Bombay
Hon'ble Honourable
Del. Delhi
p. Page No.
PLJR Patna Law Journal Reports
SC Supreme Court
SCC Supreme Court Cases
SCR Supreme Court Reporter
Sec. Section
v./vs. Versus
Lah. Lahore
& And
Cal. Calcutta
A.P. Andhra Pradesh

Page | 3
MEMORIAL FOR THE DEFENDANT
 THE STATEMENT OF FACTS

BACKGROUND

1. The Plaintiff (Mr. Kumar) is prudent and wise person and is of sound mind and
major at time of contract according to Indian Majority Act, 1875.
2. The defendant (Mr. Arun, a minor) according to Indian Majority Act, 1875 and
have real title of land.

A CONTRACT

3. The plaintiff and the defendant entered into a contract of sale of land and for
consideration of INR 20,00,000. Which was happened to be concluded with the
help of middle man Mr. Vijay. He supposed to have known Mr. Arun from a very
long time and alleged Mr. Arun to be a wise and prudent man and having real title
of land.

THE DISPUTE

4. Plaintiff submitted with complete bank document that he has paid the full amount
of INR 20,00,000 to defendant in form of bank draft INR 8,00,000 and a cheque
of INR 12,00,000. The defendant as misrepresented him as major at the time of
sale of land. The defendant refused to deliver possession of land to the plaintiff
after repeated request and took the defence of minority thereby stating that the
contract with him is void-ab-initio.

THE SUIT

5. The plaintiff filed a suit for the possession of land against Arun or INR 20,00,000
be returned to him along with adequate interest.

Page | 4
MEMORIAL FOR THE DEFENDANT
 THE STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The Counsel on behalf of the Defendant, hereby submits his written statement in the suit for
recovery. The Counsel most humbly and respectfully, submits that this Hon’ble Court has the
requisite subject matter jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate this matter.

Page | 5
MEMORIAL FOR THE DEFENDANT
 THE STATEMENT OF ISSUES

A. Whether Mr. Arun is competent to contract or not ?

B. Whether Mr. Arun is entitled to restore the benefit, he had under the contract ?

Page | 6
MEMORIAL FOR THE DEFENDANT
 THE SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

A. Whether Mr. Arun is competent to contract or not ?

The counsel on behalf of the defendant most humbly and respectfully submits before this
hon’ble court that Mr. Arun, is a minor i.e. below the age of 18 year and thus, not competent
to contract as per the provisions of section 10, 11 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. Thus, a
contract entered by him is void-ab-initio and he is not entitled to give a valid consent for such
contract.

B. Whether Mr. Arun is entitled to restore the benefit, he had under the
contract or not ?

The counsel on behalf of the defendant most humbly and respectfully submits before this
hon’ble court that Mr. Arun is a minor and not a competent party according to Indian Contact
Act, 1872. According to statement of facts he misrepresented his age at the time of sale of
land of consideration INR 20,00,000. Thus he is obliged to return only the amount paid by
the plaintiff which is traceable By the hon’ble court.

Page | 7
MEMORIAL FOR THE DEFENDANT
 THE ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

A. Whether, Mr. Arun is competent to contract or not?

THE COUNSEL ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANT MOST HUMBLY AND RESPECTFULLY

SUBMITS BEFORE THIS HONOURABLE COURT THAT MR. ARUN IS NOT COMPETENT TO

CONTRACT AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF THE INDIAN CONTRACT ACT, 1872. FOR AN

AGREEMENT TO BE A CONTRACT, PROVISIONS OF SECTION 10, INDIAN CONTRACT ACT,

18721, MUST BE FULFILLED.

For an agreement to be a contract:

- Parties should be competent to contract

- There must be free consent of parties
- There should be lawful consideration
- There should be lawful object
- It should not be expressly declared to be void

the counsel on behalf of the Defendant must humbly and respectfully submits before this
hon’ble court that Mr. Arun is a minor, his consent can’t be considered as valid consent and
the agreement is not for to supply necessities to the minor, thus it is not a valid contract.

THAT MR. ARUN IS A MINOR.

The counsel on behalf of the defendant most humbly and respectfully submits before this
hon’ble court that Mr. Arun , being below the age of 18 years, is a minor and thus not
competent to contract under the Indian Contract act, 1872.

1
‘When agreements are contracts:
All agreements are contracts if they are made by the free consent of parties competent to contract, for
a lawful consideration and with a lawful object, and are not hereby expressly declared to be void.
Nothing herein contained shall affect any law in force in India, and not hereby expressly repealed, by
which any contract is required to be made in writing or in presence of witnesses, or any law relating to
the registration of documents.’

Page | 8
MEMORIAL FOR THE DEFENDANT
DETERMINING MAJORITY

Age of majority, according to section 11, Indian Contract Act, 1872 2 shall be determined
according to law to which the person is subject. Therefore, if there is a difference between
provisions of Indian Majority Act, 1875 and those of personal law to which the person is
subject, his personal law will not prevail over Indian Majority Act, 1875.3

In the case of Kashiba v. Shripat4 the honourable court dealt with the case of a 16 year old
Hindu widow. It was held that “her capacity to contract shall be regulated by Indian
Contract Act, 1872 being the law of her domicile and she being a minor was not liable under
the bond.”5

AGE OF MAJORITY UNDER THE INDIAN MAJORITY ACT, 1875.

A person who has not attained the age of majority is a minor. Section 3 of the Indian majority
Act, 18756 provides that a person is deemed to have attained the age of majority when he
completes the age of 18 years.

Thus, the counsel on behalf of the defendant most humbly and respectfully presents before
this hon’ble court that Mr. Arun is below 18 years, he is a minor and thus incompetent to
contract under the Indian Contract Act, 1872.

2
‘Who are competent to contract –
Every person is competent to contract who is of age of majority according to the law to which he is
subject, and who is of sound mind and is not disqualified form contracting by any law to which he is
subject.’
3
H.R. Saharay, Dutt on Contract, p. 231.
4
(1894) 19 Bom 697
5
Sanjiva Row’s Commentary on The Indian Contract Act, p. 649.
6
Section 3 in The Majority Act, 1875
‘ Age of majority of persons domiciled in India —
1) Every person domiciled in India shall attain the age of majority on his completing the age of eighteen
years and not before.
2) In computing the age of any person, the day on which he was born is to be included as a whole day
and he shall be deemed to have attained majority at the beginning of the eighteenth anniversary of
that day.’

Page | 9
MEMORIAL FOR THE DEFENDANT
MINOR’S COMPETENCE TO CONTRACT
The counsel on behalf of the defendant most humbly and respectfully submits before this
hon’ble court that a minor is incompetent to enter into a contact and any contact entered by
him is void-ab-initio.7 & 8

In the case of Latcharao v. Viswanadham8 it was held by the hon’ble court that, “as a
minor cannot enter into a contract, contract with minor is void ab inotio.”

In the case of Rajubala Dasi v. Nidhurama Pandit9, it was held by the hon’ble court that,
“a contract is specifically enforceable against a minor if he has reaped any benefit under the
contract. Even though a minor cannot enter into a contract, yet, guardian of a minor can
validly enter into contract on his behalf.”10

In the case of Ritesh Aggarwal v. SEBI11 it was held by the hon’ble court that, “a contract
must be entered into by a person who can make a promise or make an offer. Else, the
contract will be void as an agreement which is not enforceable under law is void. Thus,
minors cannot enter into a contract.”12

For a contract to be valid, parties to contract must have a free consent. Consent is defined
under section 13 of Indian Contract Act, 187213&14 as agreement between two or more people
upon the same thing in the same sense. Mutual consent is essential for every agreement and
agreement is generally essential for formation of contract. Therefore, no binding contract can
be formed if there is no consensus ad idem.

Thus, it is most humbly submitted before this hon’ble court that as a minor is not competent
to give a valid consent, hence contract with Mr. Arun is void as it does not fulfil the
conditions specified under section 10 and 13 of the Indian Contract Ac, 1872.

7
Mallick, Indian Contract Act, p. 411.
8
(1903) 30 Cal. 539
9
AIR 1956 AP.
10
AIR 1956 AP.
11
T.R. Desai, Law relating to Tenders and Government Contracts, p. 136.
12
(2008) 8 SCC 205.
13
Supra 5.
14
Section 13, Indian contract Act, 1872:
‘Consent’ defined –
Two or more people are said to consent when they agree upon the same thing in the same sense.’

Page | 10
MEMORIAL FOR THE DEFENDANT
 B. WHETHER MR. ARUN IS ENTITLED TO RESTORE THE BENEFIT, HE
HAD UNDER THE CONTRACT OR NOT ?

The counsel on behalf of the defendant most humbly and respectfully submits before this
hon’ble court that Mr. Arun is a minor i.e. below the age of 18 year and not a competent
party according to section 11 of Indian Contract Act, 187215 to enter into a contract/
agreement with any other party who is competent according to Indian Contract Act, 1872.

Under the Indian Law, Generalis Regula Generaliter Est Intelligenda means a general rule
is to be generally understood, as minor is not a competent party to enter into a valid contract
/agreement and to give a valid consent, as contract with minor is void-ab-initio.

According to section 65 of Indian Contract Act, 187216 It clearly states that the agreements is
discovered to be void i.e. the agreement was valid earlier but at the time of enforceability it
can not be enforced by law. Every contract means an agreement enforceable by law, which
means firstly there should be an agreement which is enforceable by law. But in the instant
case the agreement was not discovered void but was void-ab-initial i.e void from the very
beginning.

According to this section the person is obliged to restore the advantage received as the
contract of sale of land was valid for plaintiff as Mr. Arun misrepresented his age and at
the time of enforceability of the contract. It was discovered by Mr. Kumar that this contract
was void-ab-initio.

15
Mallick, Indian Contract Act, p. 411.
16
(1903) 30 Cal. 539

Page | 11
MEMORIAL FOR THE DEFENDANT
In the case of Dadasaheb Dasrathrao v. Babi Nahani17 it was held by the hon’ble court
that, “minor is order to return to pay a sum equal to the sum borrowed under the void contract
not more than borrowed amount”.

In the case of Mahinder Syedol Ariffin v. Yeah Roiled Garg18 it was held by hon’ble court
that ,“ minor had derived advantage from the defendant, had to refund those advantage but
not more than that advantage”.

As in the instant case, Mr. Arun had misrepresented his age at the time of contract sale of
land and had received advantage from Mr. Kumar i.e. of INR 20,00,000 in the form of bank
draft INR 8,00,000 and a cheque of INR 12,00,000. As minor is obliged to pay only INR
20,00,000 not the interest which the plaintiff demanded.

17
‘Who are competent to contract –
18
‘Who are competent to contract –

Page | 12
MEMORIAL FOR THE DEFENDANT
AMOUNT TO BE GIVEN TO MR. KUMAR

In the instant case Mr. Arun is minor and he only by misrepresenting his age had got
advantage of INR 20,00,000 from Mr. Kumar. He is obliged to refund the advantage to
plaintiff which is traceable by the hon’ble court.

In the case of Leslie Ltd v. Sheill19 it was held by hon’ble court that ,“ if a minor obtains
property or goods by misrepresenting his age, he can be compelled to restore it so long as the
same is traceable in his possession”.

Under Indian law, the doctrine of restitution literally means restoration. It is based on the
notable principle that a person should not be allowed to unjustly enrich himself at the
expense of another.

According to section 65 of Indian Contract Act, 1872 the doctrine of restoration / restitution
may arises:

 When the agreement is void-ab-initio;or

 When the agreement is subsequently discovered to be void; or

 When the contract becomes void.

In the case of Bank of Rajasthan v/s Sh. Palla Ram Gupta20 it was held by hon’ble court
that,“where even at the time when the agreement is entered into both the parties knew that it
was void then it was neither the case of agreement discovered to be void nor contract
becomes void therefore section 65 of Indian Contract Act, 1872 does not apply”.

19
‘Who are competent to contract –
20
‘Who are competent to contract –

Page | 13
MEMORIAL FOR THE DEFENDANT
In the case of Virender Singh vs. Laxmi Narain21 it was held by the hon’ble court that,“ the
parties were aware of the illegality of the agreement at the time it was entered therefore it is
not the case of an agreement which was discovered to be void. Consequently, section 65 was
found not to be applicable and the return of the sum of money could not be enforced”.

In the instant case Mr. Kumar had no knowledge that he was minor and there fore the
agreement was discovered to be void by plaintiff. Mr. Arun is only obliged to return the
money which is traceable by the hon’ble court.

In the case of Khan Gul vs Lakha Singh22 it was held by hon’ble court that,“ minor contract
is void, specific performance can’t be granted and only traceable amount was to be
refunded”.

The counsel on behalf of the defendant most humbly and respectfully submits before this
hon’ble court that Mr. Arun i.e. a minor, is obliged to refund only the traceable amount
which is in his possession not the interest.

21
‘Who are competent to contract –
22
‘Who are competent to contract –

Page | 14
MEMORIAL FOR THE DEFENDANT
 THE PRAYER

Wherefore, in the light of the issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited, it is
most humbly and respectfully prayed before this Hon’ble Court to adjudge and declare that:

 Mr. Arun is a minor and does not have capacity to enter into a valid contract.
 The suit is not maintainable as the minor is not a competent person to enter into a
valid contract/agreement.
 Mr. Kumar is not entitled to any compensation.

And any other order which this hon’ble court may be pleased to grant in the interest of
justice, equity and good conscience.

All of which is most humbly and respectfully submitted.

Date:……… Defendant

Place: Through

Counsels

Associates

Page | 15
MEMORIAL FOR THE DEFENDANT