BBA . LL.

B 5 ​YEARS​ ​PROGRAMME

GITARATTAN INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS SCHOOL  

MOOT COURT PROBLEM -06 

I​N​ T​HE​ H​ON​’​BLE​ C​OURT​ ​OF​ S​ENIOR​ C​IVIL​ J​UDGE

AT
D​ELHI

​ IVIL​ S​ UIT​ N​ O​.___________2017

IN​ C

M​R​.K​UMAR
…​PLAINTIFF

V​.

M​R​.A​RUN​ (​MINOR​)
T​HROUGH​ M​R.​ ABC ​GUARDIAN
…​DEFENDANT
M​EMORIAL​ ​FOR​ ​THE​ D​EFENDANT
 T​HE​ T​ABLE​ ​OF​ C​ONTENTS 

The Table of Contents 2

The Index of Authorities I
Table of cases............................................................................................................................II
list of abbreviations.....................................................................................................​III
Statement of Facts................................................................................................................IV-V
The Statement of Jurisdiction VI
The Statement of Issues V​II
The Summary of Arguments​..........................................................................................VI​II-X
The Arguments Advanced 11
A. Whether, Mr. ARUN is competent to contract or not?. 11
That Mr. ARUN is a minor. 11
Minor’s Competence to Contract.........................................................................13
B. Whether, any guardian enters into a contract on behalf of Mr.
ARUN?..​...............................................................................................................19-22
Extent of power of guardian to enter into contract on behalf of a minor 19
Natural Guardian of Hindu minor 20
C. Whether,parties enter into a valid contract or
not?............................................................................................................22-24
No competent age of the defendant 23
D. ​ ​Whether,​ Mr. Kumar can get the possession of land or not? ..............14

The Prayer 15
 T​HE​ I​NDEX​ ​OF​ A​UTHORITIES

STATUTORY COMPILATIONS
1. T​HE​ I​NDIAN​ C​ONTRACT​ A​CT​, 1872.
2. T​HE​ I​NDIAN​ M​AJORITY​ A​CT​, 1875.
3. THE​ S​ALE​ ​OF​ G​OODS​ A​CT​, 1930

DICTIONARIES
1. B​RYAN​ A. G​ARNER​, B​LACK​’S​ ​ L​AW​ D​ICTIONARY​,
2. P. R​AMANATHA​ A​IYER​, T​HE​ L​AW​ L​EXICON​,
3. O​XFORD​ E​NGLISH​ D​ICTIONARY​,
4. W​EBSTER​’​S​ N​EW​ I​NTERNATIONAL​ D​ICTIONARY​.

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.
 TABLE OF CASES

▪ Hari v. Sew AIR 1949 Assam 57…………..…………………………….12

▪ Latcharao v. Viswanadham , AIR 1956 AP…………………………….10

▪ kundan bibee v. Sree narayan,…………………………………………..14

 ​ F​ A
LIST​ O ​ BBREVIATIONS

AIR All India Reporter

w.e.f With Effect From
Ed. Edition
Hon'ble Honourable
Ors Others
p. Page No.
PLJR Patna Law Journal Reports
SC Supreme Court
SCC Supreme Court Cases
SCR Supreme Court Reporter
Sec. Section
v./vs. Versus
VD Vitamin Deficiency
& And
 T​HE​ S​TATEMENT​ ​OF​ F​ACTS

​ 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.
The Defendant ​(Mr. Arun, a minor) according to ​Indian Majority
Act, 1875​ and have real title of the land.

​ AN AGREEMENT

2. The Plaintiff and ​The Defendant entered into ​an agreement 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 Arun from a very long time and alleged
Arun to be a wise and prudent man and having ​real title of the land​.

​THE DISPUTE

3. Plaintiff ​submitted with complete bank documents that he has paid

the ​full amount of INR 20,00,000 to defendant in the form of a ​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 his minority thereby
stating that ​the contract with him is void-ab-initio​.

​THE SUIT
 4. 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 ​.

T​HE​ S​TATEMENT​ ​OF​ J​URISDICTION

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.
 T​HE​ S​TATEMENT​ ​OF​ I​SSUES

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

B. Whether, any guardian enters into a contract on behalf of Mr. Arun?

C. Whether, parties enter into a valid contract or not?

D. Whether, Mr. Kumar can get the possession of land or not?

 T​HE​ S​UMMARY​ ​OF​ A​RGUMENTS

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 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
enter in such contract.

B. Whether, any guardian enters into a contract on behalf of Mr.

Arun or not ?

The counsel on behalf of the defendant most humbly and respectfully submits
before this hon’ble court that a guardian can enter into a contract on behalf of
a minor provided the minor reaps out some benefit from such contact or in
order to supply the minor with necessities suited to his condition in life. But in
the instant case, guardian did not enter into a contract with the Plaintiff on
behalf of his minor son.

C. Whether, parties did not enter into a valid contract.

The counsel on behalf of the defendant most humbly and respectfully submits
before this hon’ble court that no acceptance was made by Mr. Arun as he
was not a competent party to give a valid acceptance as he is minor and the
definition of goods according to Sale Of Goods Act, 1930 don’t include the
immovable property . Hence, the counsel on behalf of the defendant most
humbly submits that the acceptance was not valid of Mr. Arun and there can’t
be agreement of sale of immovable property and thus, the parties never
entered into a contract.
 D. Whether,​ Mr. Kumar can get the possession of land or not? ​.

The counsel on behalf of the defendant most humbly and respectfully submits
before this hon’ble court that agreement between the parties is void as the
subject matter of this agreement is immovable property and there can’t be
agreement of sale of immovable property according to Sale Of Goods Act
,1930 and defendant is not of competent age to enter into a contractas he is
minor.
 T​HE​ A​RGUMENTS​ A​DVANCED

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

T​HE ​COUNSEL ​ON ​BEHALF ​OF ​THE D​EFENDANT ​MOST ​HUMBLY ​SUBMITS ​BEFORE ​THIS
H​ONOURABLE C​OURT ​THAT M​R​. A​RUN ​IS ​NOT ​COMPETENT ​TO ​CONTRACT ​AS ​PER ​THE
​ F T​ HE
PROVISIONS O I​NDIAN C​ONTRACT A​CT​, 1872. F​OR ​AN ​AGREEMENT ​TO ​BE ​A
1
​ ROVISIONS O
CONTRACT​, P ​ F S​ ECTION 10, I​NDIAN C​ONTRACT ​ACT​, 1872 , ​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 submits before this
hon’ble court that as Mr. Arunis a minor, his consent is not valid thus it is not a
valid contract.

T​HAT​ M​R​. A​RUN​ ​IS​ A

​ ​ ​MINOR​.
The counsel on behalf of the defendant most humbly and respectfully submits
before this hon’ble court that Mr. Arun being of the age below 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.’
 D​ETERMINING​ ​MAJORITY
2
Age of majority, according to section 11, Indian Contract Act, 1872 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 prevail and
3
over-ride those of Indian Majority Act, 1875.

A​GE​ ​OF​ ​MAJORITY​ ​UNDER​ T​ HE​ I​NDIAN​ ​MAJORITY​ A​CT​, 1875.

A person who has not attained the age of majority is a minor. Section 3 of the
4
Indian majority Act, 1875 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 as Mr. Arun is below 18 years, he is a
minor and thus incompetent to contract under the Indian Contract Act, 1872.

M​INOR​’​S​ C​OMPETENCE​ ​TO​ C​ONTRACT

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
5
and any contact entered by him is void-ab-initio. &​ 8

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
​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.’
5
Mallick, Indian Contract Act, p. 411.
 6
In the case of ​Latcharao v. Viswanadham it was held by the hon’ble court
that, “​as a minor cannot enter into a contract, contract with minor is void ab
inotio​.”

For a contract to be valid, parties to contract must have a free consent.

7
Consent is defined under section 13 of Indian Contract Act, 1872 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.

B. W​HETHER​, ​ANY ​GUARDIAN ​ENTERS ​INTO ​A ​CONTRACT ​ON ​BEHALF ​OF M​R​.
K​HARAK​ S​INGH​?
The counsel on behalf of the defendant most humbly and respectfully submits
before this hon’ble court that guardian did not enter into a contract on behalf of
his minor son Arun and the acceptance given is not valid acceptance in this
instant case. However, the counsel most humbly submits that merely giving
acceptance by a person don’t amount to valid acceptance as the person
should be competent and of sound mind and not barred by law. The guardian
did not do any act in order to accept the same. Hence, the acceptance of the
minor without any guardian/ next friend/ defacto guardian did not amount to
valid acceptance and thus, no contract was concluded between the parties.

6
(1903) 30 Cal. 539
9​
AIR 1956 AP.
714​
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.’
E​XTENT​ ​OF​ ​POWER​ ​OF​ ​GUARDIAN​ T​ O​ ​ENTER​ ​INTO​ ​CONTRACT​ ​ON​ ​BEHALF​ ​OF​ ​A​ ​MINOR
The counsel on behalf of the defendant most humbly and respectfully submits
before this hon’ble court that in order to constitute a valid contract, one of the
8
essentials under section 10, Indian Contract Act, 1872 is that the parties must
9
be competent to contract. According to Section 11, Indian Contract Act, 1872
a person is competent to contract if he has attained the age of majority, is of
sound mind and is not disqualified from contracting by any law to which he is
subject. According to the Indian Majority Act, 1875 a person is said to have
attained majority on completing the age of 18 years.

The counsel most humbly submits that a minor is not competent to give a valid
consent and a contract entered by a minor is thus void.

N​ATURAL​ G​UARDIAN​ ​OF​ H​INDU​ ​MINOR

The counsel on behalf of the defendant most humbly are respectfully submits
before this hon’ble bench that natural guardian of a Hindu minor male, a
10
defined under section 6 of The Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956
are his parents. Thus only his father, ABC*, can enter into a contract on his
behalf.

11
In the case of ​Hari v. Sew it was held by the hon’ble court that, “​it is to be
remembered that a person who is neither appointed a guardian by any court,

8
Supra 1.
9
Supra 2.
10
Section 6, The Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956
‘Natural Guardian of a Hindu Minor:
The natural guardian of a hindu minor, in respect of the minor’s person and property are –
a) In case of a boy or unmarried girl – the father and after him, the mother, provided that the custody of
a minor who has not completed the age of five years shall ordinarily be with his mother;
b) In case of an illegitimate boy or an illegitimate unmarried girl – the mother, and after her, the father;
c) In case of a married girl – the husband.
Provided that no person shall be entitled to act as a natural guardian of a minor under the provisions of this
section –
a) If he had ceased to be a hindu, or
b) If he has completely and finally renounced the world. ‘
11
AIR 1949 Assam 57.
nor could claim that status under the law applicable to minors, cannot enter
into valid contract on his behalf. Such a contract is treated as a void contract
12
and cannot to upheld as a family settlement​.”

Thus, the counsel on behalf of the defendant most humbly and respectfully
submits before this hon’ble court that there was no guardian that acted to
accept the same and the acceptance by minor is valid acceptance.

C. Whether, parties did not enter into a valid contract or not?

The counsel on behalf of the defendant must humbly and respectfully submits
before this hon’ble court that Mr. Arun is competent party as he is minor and
there can’t be agreement of sale of immovable property thus, they did not
enter into any valid contract.

N​O​ ​COMPETENT​ ​AGE​ ​OF​ T​ HE​ ​DEFENDANT

The counsel on behalf of the defendant most humbly and respectfully submits
before this hon’ble court that Mr. Arun was merely a minor and a minor can’t
enter into the contract and his acceptance can’t be considered as valid
acceptance. Hence, the counsel on behalf of the defendant most humbly
submits that the agreement was never accepted and thus, the parties never
13
entered into a contract.

Hence, the counsel on behalf of the defendant most humbly and respectfully
submits before this hon’ble court that Mr. Arun did not accept the agreement
made between the plaintiff and Mr.Arun as he is not a competent party and
hence no contract was entered between the parties.

12
H.R. Saharay, ​Dutt on Contract​, p. 231.
13
H.R. Saharay, ​Dutt on Contract​, p. 231.
 ​ HE​ A
THAT​ T ​ GREEMENT​ B
​ ETWEEN​ P​ LAINTIFF​ A
​ ND​ M​R​.A​RUN​ ​IS​ ​VOID​.

The counsel on behalf of the defendant most humbly and respectfully submits
before this hon’ble court that the agreement between the minor is
void-ab-initio and even the subject matter of agreement of sale is land i.e.
immovable property and it is not considered in the definition of goods
according to sec.2(7) as it includes only movable property but not immovable
property and the agreement of sale can’t be made with subject as immovable
property.

The counsel on behalf of the defendant most humbly and respectfully submits
before this hon’ble court that the agreement is void as it was entered with
minor and subject matter of agreement of sale is immovable property.

In the case ​kundan bibee v. Sree narayan it was held by the hon’ble court
that, “​the defendant is minor and no agreement can be made as it is void if the
agreement is made with incompetent party”.

D. Whether,​ Mr. Kumar can get the possession of land or not?

The counsel on behalf of the defendant must humbly and respectfully submits
before this hon’ble court that Mr. Arun only have the
 T​HE​ P​RAYER

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 and give valid acceptance
❖ The agreement is void .

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
Dhruv Sharma & Associates