Capacity to contract One of the essentials of a valid contract, mentioned in section 10, is that the parties to the contract

should be competent to make the contract. According to section 11 : Every person is competent to contract according to la to hich he is sub!ect, and ho is of age of ma!ority ho is of sound mind, and hich he is sub!ect.#

is not dis"ualified from contracting by any la to competent to contract. 1. A person is minor. %. A person ho is of unsound mind &. A person la .

$t means that the follo ing three categories of persons are not ho has not attained the age of ma!ority, i.e., one ho

ho has been dis"ualified from contracting by some

Although the above mentioned categories of persons are not competent to contract, yet they may sometimes be making some bargains, taking some loans, or be supplied parties, or be conferred ith some goods by third ith some benefits etc., the position of such

person in such like situations is being discussed belo . THE POSITION OF A MINOR 'ho is a minor ( A person ho has not attained the age of ma!ority is a minor. )ection & of the $ndian *a!ority Act, 1+,- provides about the age of ma!ority. $t states that a person is deemed to have attained the age of ma!ority hen he completes the age of 1+ years, e.cept in case of a person of hose person or property a guardian has been appointed by the /ourt in hich case the age of ma!ority is %1 years.

Nature of a minors agreement As noted above a minor is not competent to contract. One "uestion hich arises in case of an agreement by a minor is, hether the agreement is void or voidable( 0he $ndian contract Act does not have any provision to ans er this "uestion. $n the absence of any statutory provision there had been controversy on this point. 0he controversy as set at rest by the decision of the 1rivy /ouncil, in the case of Mohori i!ee "s# $harmo%as &hose in '()*# $t as held that the agreement made by a minor is void.. 0he facts of Mohiiri i!ee "s# $harmo%as &hose are as un%er + hile he as a minor, mortgaged his 2utt, ho as a 0he plaintiff, 2harmodas 3hose,

property in favour of the defendant, 4rahmo loan given attorney,

moneylender to secure a loan of 5s. %0,000. 0he actual amount of as less than 5s. %0,000. At the time of the transaction the ho acted on behalf of the money lender, had the kno ledge

that the plaintiff is a minor. 0he plaintiff brought an action against the defendant stating that he as a minor mortgage hen the mortgage as e.ecuted by him and, therefore, as void and inoperative and the same should be cancelled. as prosecuted by his e.ecutors.

4y the time of Appeal to the 1rivy /ouncil the defendant, 4rahmo 2utt died and the Appeal 0he 2efendant, amongst other points, contended that the plaintiff had fraudulently misrepresented his age and therefore no relief should be given to him, and that, if mortgage is cancelled as re"uested by the plaintiff, the plaintiff should be asked to repay the sum of 5s. 10,-00 advanced to him. 0he decision of the 1rivy /ouncil on the various points raised by the defendant as as follo s :

1. 0he defendant6s contention that the minor had falsely mis7 stated his age, the la of estoppel should apply against him as a minor, as of and he should not be allo ed to contend that he plaintiff

as considered. 0he 1rivy /ouncil found that the fact that the as a minor at the time making of the agreement as held that the la kno n to the defendant6s agent. $t

estoppel as stated in )ection 11-, $ndian Evidence Act, is made to a person

as not

applicable to the present case, here the statement 8about age9 ho kno s the real facts and is not misled as observed : here the truth of the matter is ho kno s it to be false, is not as that, if the plaintiff6s by the untrue statement. $t

0here can be no estoppel representation, made to a person %.

kno n to both the parties, And their :ordships hold, that a false such a fraud as to take a ay the privilege of infancy# Anoher contention of the defendant claim to order the cancellation of the mortgage is allo ed, the plaintiff should be asked to refund the loan taken by him, according to )ection ;< and ;-, $ndian contract Act. )ection ;< of the $ndian /ontract Act reads as under : 'hen a person at contained of hose option a contract is voidable rescinds it, the other party thereto need not perform any promise therein hich he is promisor. 0he party rescinding a voidable contract shall, if he received any benefit there under from another party to such contract, restore such benefit, so far as may be, to the person from hom it as received.# 0heir :ordships observed that )ection ;< ;< as applicable to the

case of a voidable contract. *inor6s agreement being void, )ection as not applicable to the case and therefore the minor could not ask to pay the amount under this section.

Application of )ection ;-, $ndian /ontract Act, to the present case as also considered. )ection ;- is as follo s: 'hen an agreement is discovered to be void or becomes void, any person hen a contract ho has received any advantage under

such agreement or contract is bound to restore it, or to make compensation for it, to the person from hom he received it.# As regards the application of this section to the present case is concerned, it as observed that that section, like section ;<, starts hich there on the basis of there being an agreement or contract bet een competent parties, and has no application to a case in never as, and never could have been, any contract. 0he minor,

therefore, could not be asked to repay the amount even under )ection ;-. &. 0he defendant claimed the refund of the mortgage money

under another provision also, i.e. )ection <1, )pecific 5elief Act, 1+,,. 0he section reads as follo s : On ad!udging the cancellation of an instrument, the /ourt may re"uire the party to hom such relief is granted to make any hich !ustice may re"uire.# compensation to the other

As regards this section, it as held that this section gives discretion to the court to order compensation, but under the circumstances of this case !ustice did not re"uire the return of money advanced to the minor, as the money had been advanced kno ledge of the infancy of the plaintiff. ith the full

Minors ,ia!i,ity -hen the same act resu,ts in a tort as -e,, as !reach of agreement $t has been noted above that an agreement by a minor is void and, therefore, if a minor makes a breach of an agreement he cannot be made liable for the same. On the other hand, hen a minor commits a tort he is liable for that $n the same ay and to the same

e.tent as an adult person. commits a tort. =or e.ample, a minor misrepresents his age and fraudulently stating that he is of the age of ma!ority takes a loan from another person. >nder the la agreement is void, but he has also committed fraud for hich in such case arises is: )hould $f is void. On this point the /ourts have held that in tort here permitting an action of contract the minor cannot be asked to repay .the loan as a minor6s hich the liability for the tort of deceit can be possibly be there. 0he "uestion e make him liable for fraud ( hich e do so, it may also mean enforcement of an agreement

ill result in an indirect enforcement of an agreement the la

ill not permit such an action, because one cannot make an infant liable for breach of a contract by challenging the form of action to one e. %e,icto# $n /ohnson "s# Pye 0'11234 a minor falsely stated that he &00 pounds. $t as of the age of ma!ority and obtained a loan of as held that the minor cannot be asked to repay as

the loan by bringing an action for deceit against him. )imilar ho hired a mare for riding, in!ured her by over7riding. $t that

the decision in /ennings "s# Run%a,, 0'5((3# There a minor4 as held that he could not be made liable for the tort of negligence because ould mean making him liable for the breach of contract of )imilarly, if a minor purchases goods on credit, he bailment.

cannot be sued to recover the value of the goods by permitting an action for the tort of conversion. Although hen an action under the la of tort implies an indirect

enforcement of the contract the action for the same is not permitted, yet if the nature of the act is such that the tort committed by the minor is totally independent of the breach of obligation urnar% "s# Haggis 0'61*3 0here a ill be under the contract, the action for the same can lie. 0his may be illustrated by reference to minor hired a mare. $t as e.pressly agreed that the mare

used only for riding and not for !umping and larking.# 0he mare as made to !ump over a fence, she $t as held that the minor as impaled on it and killed. as liable for negligently killing the mare

as his act as totally independent of the contract made by him. urnar% "s# Haggis Mingay 0'(7*3 as follo ed in the case of a,,ett "s#

0here a minor hired a microphone and an It -as he,% that the minor6s act of of bailment and,

ampliphier. $nstead of returning the same to the o ner the minor passed it on to his friend. passing it on as altogether outside the purvie

therefore, the minor could be made liable for detinue. Minors ,ia!i,ity for necessaries $t has already been noted that a minor6s agreement is void ab initio, and he is incapable of making an agreement to pay for any services rendered or goods supplied to him. ?o ever, for the necessaries supplied to a minor reimbursement is permitted to the person supplying such necessaries. 0his is not on the basis of any contract bet een the parties but because it is deemed to be "uasi7 contractual obligation. /hapter @ of the $ndian /ontract Act

recognises /ontract#,

/ertain i.e.

5elations

5esembling 0hose /reated by )ection ;+ in that

Auasi7contractual relations.

chapter makes a provision for the reimbursement for the necessaries supplied to a minor. 0he provision is as under : $f a person, incapable of entering into a contract, or any one he is legally bound to support, is supplied by another person necessaries suited to his condition in life, the person property of such incapable person.# 0his section permits reimbursement if : 1. %. &. <. Becessaries are supplied, 0o a person or a lunatic. 0o a person ho is dependent upon such person incapable of making a contract. =or re7imbursement no personal action can lie against the minor etc., but reimbursement is permitted from the property of such incapable person. I,,ustrations 8a9 A supplies 4, a lunatic, A ith necessaries suitable to his 4 ith condition in life. property. 8b9 A supplied the ife and children of A 4, a lunatic, necessaries to their condition in life. reimbursed from 46s property. 8hat are necessaries 9 Accor%ing to Section 16 the necessaries supp,ie% to a minor :shou,% be suited to his condition in life#. $t does not mean bare is entitled to be is entitled to be reimbursed from ho is incapable of making a contract, i.e. a minor hom ith

ho has

furnished such supplies is entitled to be reimbursed from the

necessities of life, but such things

hich may be necessary to

maintain a person according to his condition in life. 8hat are necessaries may %epen% upon the status of a person4 an% a,so his re;uirement at the time of actua, %e,i<ery of the goo%s# In /agon Ram "s# Maha%eo Prasa% Sahu it -as o!ser<e% + Becessaries means goods suitable to the condition in life of the dependent and to his actual re"uirements at the time of the sale and delivery, and hether an article supplied to an infant is necessary or not, depends upon its general character and upon its suitability to the particular infant6s station in life. $t must further be observed that as necessaries# include everything necessary to maintain the infant in the state, station, or degree of life in is, hich he ith hat is necessary is a relative fact, to be determined

reference to the fortune and circumstances of the particular infant C articles therefore that to one person might be mere convenience or matters of taste, may in the case of another be considered necessaries, here the usages of society render them proper for a hich the infant moves.# person in the rank of life in

$n C,y%e Cyc,e Co# "s# Hargrea<es 0'6(634 it has !een he,% that a racing cyc,e is a necessary for an infant apprentice# )imilarly, in Chapp,e "s# Cooper 0'6773 it infant ho ido as held that an is bound by a contract for the burial of her husband as

the contract is for a necessary. $n Nash "s# Inman 0'()63 a minor, as already having sufficient supply of clothing suitable to his as supplied further clothing by a tailor. $t as held that position,

the price of the clothes so supplied could not be recovered. $n Ry%er "s# 8om!-e,,4 the %efen%ant4 an infant4 ha<ing an income of on,y 2)) Poun%s per year -as supp,ie% a pair of

crysta,4 ru!y an% %iamon% so,itaries an% an anti;ue si,<er go!,et# $t as held that these things could not be considered to be as observed that certain things like ear rings for a ild animal, cannot be necessaries. $t

male, spectacles for a blind person, or a considered as necessaries.

In =un-ar,a, "s# Sura>ma, 0'(1*3 It has held that the house given to a minor on rent for living and continuing his studies is deemed to be supply of necessaries suited to the minor6s conditions of life, and the rent for the house can be recovered. Position of a minor in partnership 1artnership arises out of contract. $t is, therefore, necessary that the parties to the contract of partnership should be competent to contract. A minor being incompetent to contract cannot become a partner. $f a minor is made a full7fledged partner along persons the agreement their contract ma!or partners. A minor is not competent to enter into a contract. ho ever, accept benefits. $n accordance may not be a partner in a firm, but, ?e can, ith that position of a ith other ould be void and the deed containing

ould be un7enforceable even bet een the other

minor, )ection &0, $ndian 1artnership Act declares that a minor ith the consent of all the partners for the time being, he may be admitted to the benefits of partnership. $f a minor is admitted to the benefits of partnership, he has a right to such share of the property and of the profits of the firm as may be agreed upon and may also have access to and inspect and copy any of the accounts of the firm. )uch a minor is not personally liable to ards the third parties for any act of the firm, but only his share is liable for such acts.

On attaining ma!ority such a minor has an option either to become a partner or not to become a partner and leave the firm. 0his option can be e.ercised by him ithin a period of si. months from that he the date of attaining the ma!ority. 4ut if he did not kno e.ercise the option

had been admitted to the benefits of partnership then he may ithin si. months of his obtaining the kno ledge that he had been admitted to the benefits of partnership. )uch option has to be e.ercised by him by giving a public notice. $f he fails to e.ercise the option either automatically becomes a partner. $f a minor, ho had been admitted to the benefits of partnership, hich he becomes a partner, but he becomes a partner, his rights and liabilities as that of a minor continues up to the date on done since he also becomes personally liable to third parties for all acts of the firm as admitted to the benefits of partnership. $t means that if a minor , on attaining the ma!ority has become a partner his liability to ards third parties is not only for the acts of the firm hich ere done after he becomes a partner, but his liability to ards the third parties is retrospective for all the acts of the firm done since the date of his admission to the benefits of the firm. ?is share in the property and profits of the firm shall be the share to hich he as entitled as a minor. $n case on attaining ma!ority he elects not to become a partner, his rights and liabilities shall continue to be those of a minor as stated above, up to the date on notice. Position of a minor in case of Negotia!,e Instruments hich he gives public notice. ?is share hich are done after such ill not be liable for any act of the firm ay, then on the e.piry of the above stated period of si. months he

)ection %;, Begotiable $nstruments Act, 1++1 makes the follo ing provision e.plaining the capacity of the parties to a contract in case of negotiable instruments : Every person capable of contracting, according to the la to hich he is sub!ect, may bind himself and be bound by making, dra ing, acceptance, endorsement, delivery and negotiation of a promissory note, bill of e.change or che"ue. A minor may dra , endorse, deliver and negotiate such instrument so as to bind all parties e.cept himself.# $f e compare the position of the minor given in the second para ith the position of a person competent to compare stated in the first para e find that a minor is incapable of doing t o thingsC firstly, making of a promissory note, and secondly, acceptance of a bill of e.change. 0he reason is obvious. 0he main obligation in case of a promissory note depends on the promise made by the maker and in case of a bill of e.change on the undertaking by the acceptor. $f they are incompetent to contract the hole of the instrument becomes inoperative. $t is, therefore, necessary that the maker of the promissory note and acceptor of a bill of e.change must be competent to contract. A minor has been authorised to dra , endorse, deliver and negotiate a negotiable instrument. Ordinarily an endorser of a negotiable instrument incurs liability to ards his endorsee and the subse"uent parties. 4ut if the endorser is a minor he ill not incur such liability. 'hen a minor makes an endorsement he thereby binds all parties e.cept himself. $t means that the transferee of a negotiable instrument from a minor has a right to recover the amount from all those minor. Position of a minor in a contract of agency ho are liable to pay the same, e.cept the

A minor is incapable of entering into a contract because an agreement by a minor is void. 'hat a minor cannot do himself, he cannot do that even through an agent. 0herefore, a minor cannot appoint an agent, or in other ords, a minor cannot become a ho is to hich he is sub!ect, principal. )ection 1+&, therefore, provides that any person of the age of ma!ority according to the la and ho is of sound mind, may employ an agent. 0here is no bar to a minor becoming an agent. An agent is merely a connecting link bet een his principal and the third parties, and it is they ho should be competent to contract. An agent may not be competent to contract. )ection 1+< provides that as bet een the principal and third persons any person 8even a minor9 may be an agent. $t has been noted above that a minor is capable of becoming an agent for the purpose of binding the third party and his principal. )o far as relations bet een the principal and his agent is concerned, a binding contract as bet een them is possible only if both parties i.e. the principal and the agent are competent to contract. 5egarding this aspect )ection 1+< states that, no person ho is not of the age of ma!ority and of sound mind can become an agent, so as to be responsible to his principal according to the provisions in that behalf herein contained.# 0hus, if a minor is appointed as agent, he ill be able to create a contract bet een his principal and the third party, but so far as his o n liability to ards the principal is concerned that ill not be there because of his minority. No estoppe, against a minor 'hen a minor misrepresents at the time of contract that he has attained the age of ma!ority, the "uestion hich arises in such a

case is, does the la as made (

of estoppel apply against as a minor

him, so as to

prevent him from alleging that he $n other

hen the contract

ords, can he be made liable on the

agreement on the ground that once he asserted that he has attained ma!ority he should not be allo ed to deny the same ( )ection 11-, $ndian Evidence Act estoppel is as under : 'here one person has by his declaration, act or omission intentionally caused or permitted another person to believe a thing to be true, and to act upon such belief, neither he nor his representatives shall be allo ed in any suit or proceeding bet een himself and such person or his representative to deny the truth of that thing.# According to the rule contained in )ection 11-, $ndian Evidence Act, if you make a statement today "uestion of your liability arises. 0he "uestion of estoppel came before the courts. $n Mohori i!ee "s# $harmo%as &hose the minor misrepresente% his age -hi,e ta?ing ,oan4 !ut the fact that the person ta?ing the ,oan is a minor -as ?no-n to the money ,en%er# The Pri<y Counci, %i% not consi%er it necessary to %eci%e -hether Section ''24 In%ian E<i%ence Act -as app,ica!,e to the present case4 !ecause the money ,en%er -as not mis,e% !y the fa,se statement ma%e !y the minor as has -as a-are of the rea, age of the !orro-er# =rom the various decisions of the different ?igh /ourts the concensus is that the la e find that of estoppel does nor apply against a hich misleads another person, hen the you are not allo ed to deny the statement tomorro hich lays do n the la of

minor. ?e is allo ed to plead minority a a defence to avoid liability

under an agreement even though at the time of making the agreement he falsely stated that he has attained age of ma!ority. In%ian @a- + compensation !y a minor $t may be noted that in England restitution, that is, the restoring back the property by a fraudulent minor is permitted, if the property can be traced. According to @es,ie "s# Shei,, the money obtained by a minor cannot be recovered from the minor as the same cannot be traced. $f a minor is asked to pay back the money it may mean enforcing contractual obligation against a minor, hich the la does not permit, hich has arisen in $ndia is, ho far the minor can be rongly obtained by him under a 0he "uestion

asked to restore back the benefit the other party (

void agreement ( /an a minor be asked to pay compensation to $n $ndia the "uestion of compensation under the follo ing t o kinds of provisions has arisen before the /ourts : 1. 'hether a minor can be asked to pay compensation under sections ;< D ;-, $ndian /ontract Act for the benefit obtained by him under a void contract ( %. 'hether a minor can be asked to pay compensation in vie of

the provisions contained in sections &+, &E, and <1, )pecific 5elief Act, 1+,, ( oth the a!o<e ;uestions ha<e !een ans-ere% in the negati<e !y the Courts in the case of Mohori &hose# eneficia, Contracts of Ser<ice an% Apprenticeship Position in Eng,an% i!ee "s# $harmo%as

>nder the English la

an infant is bound by the contract of /ontracts of

apprenticeship or service because such contracts are beneficial to him and help him in earning his livelihood. necessaries. $nfants liability is only in respect of those contracts hich are beneficial to him. $f the contract is substantially beneficial to an infant even though there are some minor disadvantage s to him, the contract is binding. $f, ho ever, the contract is not substantially beneficial to the infant, but is pre!udicial to his interest the same is voidable at his option. In C,ements "s# @on%on an% North 8estern Rai,-ay Co#4 an infant, ho as employed as a porter in a rail ay company agreed ould !oin /ompany6s o n insurance >nder the /ompany6s as lo er but it as held that ould not make any claim for personal in!ury under ith his employers that he scheme and apprenticeship stand on the same footing as the contract for

the Employers6 :iability Act, 1++0. covered more cases of accidents for on the hole the agreement

insurance scheme the rate of compensation

hich compensation could be

recovered than under the Employer6s :iability Act. $t therefore, the same $f, on the as binding on him.

as beneficial to the minor and

hole, the contract is pre!udicial to the interests of the as engaged by the plaintiff as an hich she ould not marry during any professional illing to ould be

infant, the same is voidable at his option. $n $e Francesco "s# arnum4 a girl of 1< years apprentice for training in stage dancing. 0he terms to as made to agree included that she apprenticeship, engagement she ould not accept

ithout the plaintiff6s consent, she

go for the performances abroad. 0he remuneration to be paid to

the infant apprentice ranged bet een ;d. and Ed. per sho as to be paid to her stage dancing. $t its terms apprentice and hen she

during

the first three years and bet een ;d. and 1 sh. 0hereafter. Bothing as not employed and the plaintiff as not found suitable for the hole could terminate the contract, if she

as held that considering the contract as a

ere unreasonably pre!udicial to the interests of the infant ere, therefore, not enforceable against her.

An infant is not liable for every beneficial contract. 0he liability is only for contracts of service or apprenticeship. 0here is no liability for a trading contract. $n Co-ern "s# Nie,% the defendant, an infant, ho as a trader in hay and stra , agreed to supply some clover and hay to the plaintiff. ?e received the payment from the plaintiff in advance but failed to supply the material. $n an action against the infant defendant to recover back the price paid it held that even though the contract he being an infant could not be made liable for the same. Contracts ana,ogous to those of ser<ice an% apprenticeship A minor is bound for a beneficial contract of service or apprenticeship, or any contract analogous thereto. 0his may be illustrated by referring to the decision in Sta%ium @t%# 0-he plaintiff, as a bo.er, stating as under : $ hereby apply for a licence as a bo.er and, if the licence is granted to me, $ declare to adhere strictly to the rules of the 4ritish 4o.ing 4oard 81E%E9 as printed and abide by any further rules or alterations to e.isting rules as may be passed A licence accordance as duly granted to him and rene ed thereafter. ith the rules the plaintiff $n as dis"ualified in one of the ho $oy,e "s# 8hite city as an infant, applied for licence as as beneficial to the defendant,

contests for hitting belo him as

the belt and a sum of &000 pounds due to as as ith the 4oard of /ontrol as so

ithheld. 0he infant sued to recover that amount. $t ith the contract of service that the same

held that the infant6s contract closely connected amount. Position in In%ia Contracts of ser<ice >nlike English :a

binding against him and, therefore, he could not recover the

contracts of service entered into by a minor are

void. Beither a minor can enter into such a contract himself, nor can the minor6s guardian or other representative make a contract on his behalf. 0he follo ing observations of 2esai F. in Ra> Rani "s# Prem A%i! e.p,ains the position + Bo though according to English la the minor ould be liable in as for his the case of a contract of service contract being void, the minor here the contract

benefit, it is clear that under )ection 11, /ontract Act the minor6s ould not be held liable GG.. $f the minor6s contract is a void contract, he is not entitled to sue for damage for breach of such contract including the contract of service here contract is entered into by the minor himself G.. $f then a minor cannot sue on a contract of service entered into by him personally, is entitled to sue for obtaining practically the same relief, simply because the contract has been entered into for and on his behalf and for his benefit by his guardian ( $ have already referred to the fact that a minor cannot employ an agent, and, therefore, it cannot be said that the contract and on his behalf# in that sense# 0he facts of Ra> Rani "s# Prem A%i! are as follo s : 0he father of 5a! 5ani, ho as a minor, entered into a contract on her behalf as entered into for

ith 1rem Adib, a film producer. According to the contract 5a! 5ani as to act as a film actress in the defendant6s studio, on as not given any ork. payment of a certain amount. 5a! 5ani

)he sued the producer, 1rem Adib for the breach of contract. $t as held that the plaintiff, being a minor, the contract father on behalf of his minor daughter also, that is, the same consideration. Contracts of Apprenticeship Although $ndian la does not make a minor bound by the contract of service, contracts of apprenticeship are binding under the $ndian Apprenticeship Act, 1E;1. )ince the contracts of apprenticeship are binding against the minor, such contracts could validly be entered into by a minor6s guardian on behalf of the minor. Contracts of marriage /ontracts of marriage are supposed to be beneficial to minors and, therefore, a minor is entitled to enforce them. =a<er>i "s# @a,>i =aramsi as, 81E<19 4ombay ?igh /ourt $n ?him>i the "uestion before the as as void. $t as also observed that the contract of service entered into by the as void for another reason ho as a minor is no ithout any consideration because

consideration moving from a third party,

hether the contract of marriage of a

minor girl entered into by her mother on her behalf ith a ma!or boy could be enforced and she could sue for the breach of contract. 0he "uestion as ans ered in the affirmative and her action as allo ed. Hania F. observed : 0he decision of this court sho by a guardian of a minor ?indu that a contract of betrothel made as not "uestioned as enforceable.

'hen the minor brought a suit against the other contracting party to get his rights declared and enforced, the court assisted him in doing so. 0he principle on hich it appears that contracts of this

kind are considered enforceable at the instance of the minor is that the contract as made on behalf of the minor by his guardian and if the court found that it as for his benefit the /ourt enforced it.# In A!%u, RaAa? "s# Mahome% Husein 0'('53 0he 4ombay ?igh /ourt allo ed an action against a muslim father, subse"uently there ho promised to give his minor daughter in marriage to the plaintiff, but as a breach of the contract. $n this case after the defendant agreed to give his minor daughter in marriage to the plaintiff, the plaintiff spent some amount by presenting ornaments and clothes to the defendant6s daughter and incurred certain other e.penses in connection ith the agreement for the marriage. On as held that the plaintiff the breach of the contract of marriage, it sections ;- D ,& of the /ontract Act. Contracts !eneficia, to a minor 'hile no liability can be incurred by a minor he is not debarred from accepting a benefit. $f a minor has advanced mortgage money and there is a mortgage in his favour, he can sue for enforcement of a contract. 8Ragha<a Chariar "s# Srini<asa 3 '('1 )imilarly, a minor can sue on a promissory Bote e.ecuted in his favour. 8RanganaAu "s# Ma%ura asappa3 0'('*3

as entitled to recover the amount from the defendant under

Position of a person of Bnsoun% Min% 'e have already noted that according to section 11 a person of sound mind is competent to contract. $t means that if a person is of unsound mind he is as much incompetent to contract as a minor. 'hat is sound mind for the purpose of making a valid contract has been defined by section 1% as under :

A person is said to be of sound mind for the purpose of making a contract if, at the time upon his interests.# )oundness of mind is re"uired only at the time of making a contract. $t is possible that a person contract ho is usually of unsound mind, may make a ho hen he is of sound mind. $t means that even a person hen he makes it, he is capable of understanding it and of forming a rational !udgement as to its effect

is usually of unsound mind can make a contract during lucid intervals, i.e., at such intervals lunatic asylum, those intervals. Fust as a person ho is usually of sound mind can make a contract ay, a person ho is usually of ho is during lucid intervals, in the same contract hen he is of sound mind. 0hus, a patient in a ho is at intervals of sound mind, may contract during

sound mind, but occasionally of unsound mind, may not make a hen he iEs of unsound mind. 0hus, a sane man, delirious from fever or ho is so drunk that he cannot understand the hilst such delirium or drunkenness lasts

terms of a contract or form a rational !udgement as to its effect on his interests, cannot contract 8Ram Sun%ar Saha "s# Ra> =umar 0'(C63 $n In%ar Singh "s# Parmesh-ar%hari Singh 0'(253 it has been held that a person may to all appearances, behave in a normal fashion, but, at the same time, he maybe incapable of forming a !udgement of his o n, as to hether the act he is about to do is to his gives interest or not, and to the contracts of such a person the la

protection#. $n this case, on the death of his =ather, the defendant Bo. 1 purported to sell some properties to the plaintiff for a consideration of 5s. ,,000I7 and e.ecuted a sale deed for the purpose. 0he properties purported to be sold under the sale deed ere orth 5s. %-,000I7 *other of defendant Bo. 1 pleaded that her son as a congenital idiot,

incapable of understanding transactions relating to transfer of properties, and that he is a man of unsound mind and mostly void. $t as held that defendant Bo. 1 anders about here and there and therefore, the transaction made by him is as incapable of understanding business and forming a rational !udgement as to its effect upon his interest at the relevant time and, therefore, the sale deed e.ecuted by him in favour of the plaintiffs did not confer any title on them.