Contract

Law
 Page 1 → Cover
Page
Page 2,3 Index
→

1 Topic -
2
from case Material 4 -
9

Mrs Castiel Carbolic Smoke 4

v
Britain
company
Pharmaceutical Society of Great
,

Boot cash chemist Ltd .

4 -
5

6
Balfour v
Balfour Kalia
Govardhan
Das
Bhagwan das

Girdhaoilal Purshottam 7 -
8

Lahman Shukla v Gauri Datt 8

Harvey v
Facey 9

Felthous 9
v
Binkley

2
Topic Case Material 10 14
4
from
-
-

Kedarnath
Bhattacharya vs Gone Muhammad 10 -
Il

Venkata Chinmaya Rau vs Venkata Ramya Gane H -

12

↳ Dutton v Poole ,
Twedde v Atkinson

Exceptions to Doctrine
of Privity
↳ Nawab
Khwaja Muhammad Khan v Nawab Hussaini
Begum

Dorais wami Aounachala 13 14

Iyer Tyer
-

v .

Abdul Aziz v.
Masami Ali 14

3 Topic -
3
from case material 15-16

Union Maddala
of India v Thathiah 15

Pradesh 16
Rajendra Kumar Verma v State
of Madhya
 from material
4
Topic -
5 case
Khan Gul
17 -

,
+
Mohon Bibee Dharmodas Ghosh 17 18
.

vs Latina
Singh
-
 Topic 2- case material - cases
All England law
Reports
g.
Case I # Mrs Calill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co [1891-4] ALL ER 127

Advertises
Company Pointed
"
" "

with
Smoke Ball advertisement will
fuontmct
"
→ methods
per cold
→

usage
as →
No one
Influenza or

Pounds
If still contracts → Reward of 100

Plaintiff
e.
Mrs
"

Castille
Bought the smoke balls
"

→
used them as
lpsescribed in the advertisements →

yet contracted influenza →

went to court to claim reward

carbolic Smoke
Company defence 's - :

↳ Carlile her letter

① We
published an advertisement but Mrs never communicated with us or sent or notice
of Acceptance
② company in it 's
defence stated that it was a
general offer & not specifically to the plaintiff .

Court while verdict

says giving :
-

↳ ① General
offers need no
formal notice
of acceptance ,
mere
fulfillment of conditions makes it
accepted .

② As Mrs Carlile did complete her steps of prescription as mentioned in the advertisement ,
makes her

a
party to contract .

③ Now Carbolic Smoke

company has to reward her with 100
pounds of her reward claim .

Provisions law behind this

of
-
:

① In general offer (made to

public large) acceptance need not be communicated by acceptor
at .

② It the conditions
of the offer fulfilled by the acceptor
enough that
is are .

Case I # PHARMACEUTICAL SOCIETY Of GREAT BRITAIN r Boot (ASH CHEMIST LTD .

1952 ALL ER

Boots hash chemist Ltd store Service rack

displays checkout
self system
→ →
new →

w u w u u
Too
]
t
←

tea
>
On
April 13 1953
,
→ a customer enters the
shop to
7k¥'M
-
→

'T
Is In
¥

purchase medicine
,
same time a
person from pharmaceutical

Society of Great Britain was

doing surveillance

Customers pick medicine choice &

for checkout
basket
of their
to the to counter
were
given bang
.

Customer Past 1
picked a medicine → contained substance listed in
of poison list under sect
of Pharmacy & Poison Act , 1933 .

①
syrup of hypophosphite - 0.23% wlv
② fennel syrup -
0.23% w/ v codeine

WH →

weight by volume
 Pharmaceutical & Poison
Society brought against defendant for violating Sec 18 Cilla) of Pharmacy Agt
→
case
, .

Counsel
of the Plaintiff States that defendant enlisted & shelves
→
the the
days medicine on the with

their fries marked &

→ makes it an
offer to
buy .
-

pick the item ,

pay you own it .

Counsel
of defendant slates that this the
:
form of shop is
nothing different than
primitive design of shops
where the buyer to
shopkeeper &
used ask the
regarding the medicine the
pharmacist or

Here
assistant used to pass on the medicine .
even
though the customers are
free to
pick the medicines , yet the
pharmacist verifies each sale
before checkout .

Question ? -
whether the sale is
complete before the intended fuoehaser paid his
money ?
Is here an
offer to sell or
offer to buy ?
an

Verdict In favour of DEFENDANT

toast that there made intended purchases when
says
is an
offer to
buy by the
he/she
visits the counter medicine The
pharmacist the right
with .
reserves to
reject the
offer if
the medicine
brought violates see 18
lil fat of Pharmacy &
poison act 1933 .

Court clarifies if men

display of items with their
prices over the
shelf is considered

as
offer to sell
,
it puts us in a
very dangerous position where if the purchaser
wishes their basket will
to remove
any
item out
of violate the contract .

Also book store if any customer picks book read

,
in a
,
a to
before buying he/she ,

will have to
bury the
picked book .
Case II # Balfour v Balfour Case :

facts :
① A couple resides in
Ceylon →
Holiday →
England →
wife ill →
advised to
stay in
Egland
Husband had to return to
Ceylon
② Husband send
agrees to 30 Pounds per month as her maintenance expenses .

③ for later
difference husband
few months he
paid b/w couple stopped paying
→ →

⑨ Wife Brought her husband to

an action
against recover her amount
of arrears .
.

Contention Pasties
of the :

Wife : → contended that there exists an

agreement b/w her & her husband

to claim
that she has the
right the amount
for maintenance
agreed by her husband
→

VERDICTS : Husband Acquitted

Domestic contracts
→
agreements are not .

At
of making agreement there to create
legal relations
→
the time are no intensions .

→ Because the parties did not have intension to

therefore Husband is required to
any file a suit not
pay the

amount
of maintenance .

(
Had these
agreement been written
/ consideration existed →
might have been a contract )

Provisions of Law behind this :

Domestic court law

agreements enforceable in
not
of
→
are .

→ courts will not

interfere b/w the spouses in their
day to day affairs .
Case II #
Bhagwan das Govardhan das Kalia v Girdhan Lak Parshottomdlas
'

( 1872)
seller Buyer
a

facts
or
.
→ kedia →
Defendant I Appealant Girdharikd →
Plaintiff / Respondent
& loker court
system:* d Wer court stpeme court

khamgaon ( Maharashtra
) Ahmedabad

Question
ITI
→

ATT aight ? BHT ?

2,3
-
see y Indian contracts Act 1872
, , ,

→
Telephonic conversation b/w respondent & fdaintift over sale purchase of cotton seed cakes -
.

→
Plaintiff bought suit
for decree of Rs 31150 as defendant did not supply Ahmedabad City
a
CTC in
civil

Khamgaon vs Ahmedabad ? In
of telephone tutorsLindseyMiles far east
wonmianme.amcase →

In
case

letters
→

Adamson V
v .

when of
ka.YY.jp.ae
→
case
is contract
complete ?
→
won
a
Dunlop v Vincent
Higgins by
↳ Sect Indian Contract Act → Proposer →
fsoposal sent & acceptor accepter
Justice
Hidayatullah

Acceptor →

knowledge of acceptance conveyed to

fsndposek
µ Cases to
quote → Adams vs Lindell 1818
) confirmed in 2nd case
→
Kalia 's con see

Both say against Dunlop vs Vincent

Higgins in the
↳
each other
\ Entores Ltd Miles far East
Here it said
offer is said to be
-
complete place
↳ also
-

place of jurisdiction
where
acceptance Here
is
confirmed
khamgaon
→ v
Corporation
↳
Plaintiff → London (via Telex similar to
telephone ) → with
agent of company (sitting Holland
) Company HQ (
→ New York ' 's

Plaintiff said contract was made in New York

,
But the
judges say acceptance was received at
Hofland
therefore Jurisdiction
of Holland

Acc to verdicts Offer 's Acceptance was received at Ahmedabad ,

so the
jurisdiction of Aiohumstedgbad

Justice Hidayattulah (later CTI → Prez

of India) → Dissents
law doctrine Indian contract Act
common
of follow their letter
of
→ → source →
we must not law .

CRITICISM :
4 Scenarios
possible :

① Acceptance →

fully heard →
our case

② Telephone fails

③ Telephone fails at one - end .

→
failed at
proposer end ,
did not ask acceptor

⑨ Telephone fails at one end →

failed at
proposer 's end
,
asked again whether
the
acceptance is

confirmed .
 ① Acceptance →

fully heard →

only place of jurisdiction in doubt .

② Telephone fails → No contract

③ Long Distance →
Shouts but acceptance could not be heard

⑨ Asks acceptance conveyed 2nd

Long Distance →

again
time → Contract if

Hidayatullah says telephone is

just instantaneous form of letter
Oja , Oja
Justice Ahmedabad
Majority
→ an
Justices →

Miles far east Gela)

futons v
GI : too
years
back A in Delhi &B in
Bombay
&
(Post) B bag
by
letter he wishes to sell Dissenting Justice →
Khamgaon
Higgins
an
Vincent
Dunlop v

A dissents
&
Lindell ( Post)
artifact If accepts .

offer the & sends

why an imp ? for future
Adams v
a
post card from Delhi to Bombay if new
technology comes
, precedent
contract was
completed in DELHI .

of dissent exists as well .

Ace to Adam v Lindell

Also coveted 3rd scenario
or

Dunlop v Vincent
Higgins Sec
3440dg Rest all scenarios
Indian contract
Act , 1872 .

Case # hodman Shukla v Gauri Datt

t d

Defendant Plaintiff (also munim

of defendant)
fAC7 →
Defendants nephew → absconds →
found nowhere

→ Mr Shukla asks his servants to

go
out to search
for boy . .

Mr Gauri ticket &

to Haridwar
for travel
→
Datt is sent with some
money
.

→
In the Mr Shukla Rs 501 hand bills to whoever
meantime
,
announces a reward
of in -

brings his
nephew .

In
few days returns with
nephew from Cawnpore
→
munim Haridwar to .

Mr Shukla rewards him with 2 & Rs

sovereigns
→ Lo .

Mr Datt 6 Shukla & then leaves

for Mr
always general offer
→
months he knew about the
works more
for ,

he
ever since
returned .

→
files Mr Shukla his
a case
against for Rs 499
after leaving job .

Plaintiffiscounsd General
offer existed -
Mr Datt completed the required conditions → He is
eligible for rewards Hence Bug .

Defendant 's Counsel : General

offer if
→
knowledge of offer to Mr Datt
X → No knowledge → No contact

Hence no award .

Court agreed to
defendant 's counsel and also stated that when Mr Datt took the
responsibility to
go
out

& look for nephew & was

paid for travel & accommodation ,
it enlisted as his
duty ( in addition to
of being munim ) .
So Mr Datt
, merely
did his duty & not

fulfilling cord of contract

"
.
Casey # Harvey v
Facey : 1893

Facey owned
Bumper Hall Pen ( piece of land)

hater
Harvey discovers that
Pacey
-

To :
Facey To :
Harvey To :
Pacey → Breach
of contract
from from
from :
Harvey
:
Facey :
Harvey is
selling the Pen to
city council .

plead by plaintiff
→
will
you
sell the lowest
price He
agreed to
Harvey sued
Facey
for Bumper
→
Hall
→
Pen
Hall Pen ? buy the
Bumper & wants to
Pen was 900
Telegraph lowest
bounds
send him the
Trial court Loses
price
-
Harvey
.

cash deed .

Telegraph I
Telegraph 2
Telegraph 3 Appeal court →
Harvey wins

Jamaica Supreme Coast →

Harvey wins

Privy Council →
Facey wins

states that
statement
Privy council not
"

offer
simple question
.

as
same
is to

of factsell Simple answer "

to
.

Case # Fellhouse v
Bindley :
1862

FACT : → flelhouse offered to

purchase Binkley 's Horse
for 35
pounds .

"
flethouse
"

wrote another letter if I hear about the horse I consider horse

→
no more shall mine .

, ,

→ No letter was sent to the letter .

Brindley instructed its auctioneer Althouse

"
→
his horse it sold to
"

not to sell as was .

The Auctioneer mistake told the horse

by
→ .

Now felthouse sued

→
Bindley .

Contention pasties
of the
:

the horse had

→
Althouse stated ace to contract become his lpaepeoty .

" "

felthouse 's
Thus
Bindley liable
for Of
→
was conversion the same in name .

Decision of court :
→ Coast said mere silence can 't be treated as
acceptance .

Binkley his & mental

→
communicated to Althouse acceptance invalid
never
acceptance is .

felthouse is not liable conversion

for
→ .
 Topic 4 - case material - cases
babe I # KEDARNATH
I
BHATTA CHART I V GO RIE
d
MAHOMED :
( 1886) Calcutta
High Court

Plaintiff Defendant
Facts kedamdhBhaltachesg.is Municipal commissioner
of Howrah & one
of the trustees
of Howrah Town Hall
fund

[ Wanted to construct a town hall in Howrah → wanted public donations

&
fraise funds)
opened trust Howrah hall donations
town
fund for
a → .

Trust came
up with a
subscription plan → Rs 100

Goriemahcgned →
Also a subscriber
of this plan to raise
money for
town hall

d
No subscribers
of I
increased

Trust
felt
&
now construction can be
pursued
contract
foamed Commissioner & A contractor ( for construction
Defendant subscribers
was + t

&
construction plan →
was
passed → new subscriber
kept coming
More
funds .
 Old
With
play of construction initial
budget 26 ooo Rs
-
new →
money
→
.

New additions to utilise the

money
-
increased budget → noooo Rs -
liaboihjtdmoftkaiasddttom
26000
to 40000
total
contractor
.

to

As per head liability increased

Defendant thought why should he much
building ?
→
pay so extra
for a
public use

I
Said no consideration ,
no
benefits

Plaintiff said → consideration exists →

Defendant knew that he is

putting his money in charitable trust
for
construction
of Town Hall in Howrah .

(enough cause for consideration

)
Plaintiff also said thet
they started construction on the
faith of subscribers & also had in cased the liabilities to noooo B

on this
faith .

Consideration ?
O

Plaintiff →
faith of subscriber
Defendant
→
Cause
of charitable toast

VERDICT
CONTRADICTING
L
CASE
contract valid as consideration exists
f
ABDUL AZIZ

Gooie Mahomed had to

pay his ✓

mas um Ah ,
subscription Discussed in case VI
of these notes

In consideration erect that town hall g

"

of you entering into a contract to

understand to
supply money for it ?

Case VI # VENKATA CHIN NAYA RAV v VEN KATARA MAYA GARU :

( 1881)
Act
contracts

↳ HIT ITT ? →
Indian 1872

Doctrine
of Privity See 2 (d) Consideration Mnet:
→ the
dating privily effects
→ →

,
see 2

Do quote → Nawab
Khawaja Muhammad Khan v Nawab Hussaini
Begum ( discussed below)
As
long as these is a consideration , it is immaterial who has
famished it .

wmidm.to?tdanghterioom:qo.m.ge.toher#swd!oH
Case : DUTTON v Poole → 1677 (initial case )

father I son
t ↳
Son
son
says give the
DqgYand filed suit against son
for beach
of contact says them a
.

a
→

wanted to sell a
log of log to me
,
i'll
give & son who htt ?
you ?
MT
was
yw father ,
are

:÷¥÷÷÷
 * Tweddle vs Atkinson ( 1861)
↳ Position
of pasty who is not a

beneficiary discussed here

O O
da both said kids will
f father you merry we
give you certain

amount
father father
son
Bride's
daughter Ings father failed to
page → Son in law sued the bride 's
father
Brides he
father defended saying
contract was
b/w father's , plaintiff is not
pasty to contract

"

Court said consideration

→ No stranger to the can take
advantage of a contract
although made
for

Minty
"

his Doctrine
benefit →

of .

Summary of English Precedents fee here discussed

① Promisee consideration
we
history
only
→
→

⑧ Stranger to contact
of doctrine
of Privity .

→ even
though beneficiaries .

case in hand
f. For better .

understanding .

⑧# Venekta Chinnaya Rau vs Venketa Ramaya Garu

qi Gi Defendants flea
→
HIATT ?
Mother
Daughter
do y t
Doctrine
of Privity * read
from Ifs!
Mother said i’ll transfer the →
Daughter refuses to
→
Maternal Aunt drags her I t
property to you but you’ll the Court said Plaintiff already had the benefits of
so once she
gets
→ to
to count law
have to pay Rs 653 per annum of .

Rs653 per annum due to this land, now Back

on
to your maternal aunt ownership of land .

in saturn
you being the owner of the land has
fulfil that duty.
Duty
↳ she is getting nothing
consideration .
Poole

therefore
no

⑧ #Nawab Khwaja Muhammad Khan vs Nawab Hussaini

Begum↳
similar to Atkinson
Tweddle vs

O
facts :
k
h →
father
He
promised 500 Rs
perpetuity if you marry my
son .

Lady sued her

d
father in law
-

qq.tiagsheagreedqea-aee-ypa.g.mg
status
many after attaining major father defence
in law 's
to

gigs: :in:gY÷:
""

Hussaini
; Proven
Husband .
Trial court →

Lady
looses →
miscount
④ But the married home & Betel
Bguqmi.org she left leaf expense was not
paid
nppeae coast
&
Affirms that the contract was
for
her benefit she has ,
a valid consideration
& can sue & coast overruled .
 Exception to
Privity :
cases

① Beneficiary under best or

charge : Nawab
Khwaja Muhamad Khan vs Nawab Hussaini
Begum
↳
If trust exist
for benefit of that
beneficiary court
of law
can sue in
someone → .

Cased

Marriage Settlement Partitions

②# ,
.

Dapto vs
Jaspat Rai
h
Lady left home due to
cruelty -
Husband makes
agreement
with
father in law
wife ftgeadtowhe;
I
pay you .

I
court
says exception Defendant plead ← case
← sued ←
cruelty happened
of marriage
in case
Doctrine
of dimity
settlement

3rd
③ Acknowledgement / ESTOPPEL - : Person →
Binding obligation
Foreign : A sells a
phone to B & asks to
pay the sum to C & all 3 know
of this

arrangement then doctrine of privily

,
does not stop C
from suing B
, if he
fails
to
pay the sum .

⑨ Covenants
running with land :
any obligation while dealing with land .

↳ Tuck Moxie Ay
vs
(not too important

Case VII # DORAL SWAMI IYER v ARUNACHAL A IYER :

Sec 25 → without consideration → contract void

[consideration -
return value ]
price of the promise
why ? if nothing in return becomes charity
→
it a
,

Sec 2 (d) →
At the desire
of the
promiser ,

DURGA PRASAD v BAE DEO :

Plaintiff built shops collector 's order ( Dc) and lends those shops to vendors
Er Er if some on .

9 t t t Now he wishes to each sale So when the vendor

0£ 0g In & get commission on
they make .

, rejects ,
he goes

to law
court
of .

Court asked a RATHI INT AT ? who said about commission ?

consideration vendors &

at the desire
of the promises ? missing → won no

commission was
paid .
 Kedarnath honk Mohammed I these notes
case
of
→
v .

↳
classical example of consideration where the
beneficiary really do not
get much
yet the Ivalice
I
.

Doraiswami Iyer v. Arunachala Iyer

↳ Feb 1928
Repairs of a
temple → →

money felt shoot →

subscription plan similar to
kedgrndh
fA f Gori e Mohammad

Oct 1928

As required More liability 125 Rs subscribed and later

more
money
→
refused to
pay
→ →

the
money
coast stated Sec Hd ) Indian constraints Act 1872 I
of ,

To which the
+
k
receive
responded
As
Court asked list , did per your promise I faith to

they
wrote their name in a
they neither
tpaymmt I increased liability
to repaid
Anything repair the temple ,
nor to abstain the
allows taken
court
?
name
where is the consideration →
the list
back
from
.

Unilateral promises : one sided promises

* ABDUL Ali v MAS UM All :

Defendant promises → 500 Rs →

for building a
mosque
→ But work never started →
Plaintiff asked

money
As started
work never
,
no consideration fulfilled → no consideration ,
no contract , hence
defendant
acquitted
Kedarnath →
Domiswami →
Abdul Aziz → Venkata
chinmaya s Nawab
 Topic 3 - case material - cases
Case # Union
of India v Maddala Thathiah : 1966
, t
Plaintiff RespondentHigh court ruled in the
Trial court ruled against
Mr Maddala , stating Admin
Magog favour of Mr Maddala ,
reserved the right to cancel appeal in Supreme Court

facts → General
Manager of Railway invited tenders
for supply of jaggery to
railway grain shops .

Pam 2 & dates

about
quantity required of delivery
→
informs .

A
"

the cancel at the

note Administration
stage during
→
stated that to contract
reserves
right the
any
contract without calling up the outstanding on
unexpired potion of contract !

→
Pasa 9 asked
security deposit
the tenderer to submit a .

→
Respondent won the tender & submitted his
security deposit
.

[ Rs 7900 )
→
Dates
for delivery were March I
,
March 22
,
5
Afrit & 21
April ,
1998
of 3500 mounds each
fl mound =

3732kg)
On March 8,1948 General Manager informed
the
Deputy the
respondent that contract is cancelled &
→
no

further delivery is
required .

Notice also contained that 14000 mounds total formal orders will be
despite the
quantity of individual placed
→
as
,

for each
delivery of jaggery .

As the plaintiff here rejected to

buy more
,
Mr Maddalena went to coast & asked
for justice .

ruled
High Court in
favour of Mr Maddock .

Railways dept appealed in Supreme coast ( voter

Plaintiff) ( Maddala Respondent)
-

Plaintiff 's Gunsel : →

Administration resewed the
rights to cancel the unexpired potion of contract at
any
moment
of time .

→ for each
delivery . Railways were to send a
formal order
of 3500 mounds

each .

→ On March 1
,
1948 we received 3500 mounds & on March 8 , 1948 we

informed that no more

jaggery
is
required .

→
Next
delivery was scheduled
for
Masek 22
,
1948 (so we
informed prior to date

VERDICT : Supreme Court ruled in the

favour of respondent & held the decision
of Higham
night & stated "
that this leaves
dangerous precedent
"

reservation cancel
of sight
as to a .

Dismissed the appeal by VOI with costs .

Case # Rajendra Kumar Verma v .
State
Madhya
of Retford Pradesh 4974
Plaintiff art

Facts : → It is a writ
petition under Article 226 ( High court ) .

Respondent advertised for receiving tenders for sale

of Tender - Patta ( leaves) from unit No 7 ,
Budni

Petitioner dated 25/3/1969 but tenders opened made

tender
before the He
application
→

gave were →
a , an

sniffs:!7nd
"

( and requested
"

Annexuse A residing / withdrawing his tender his tender not be opened) →

Rs 38.25 per bag & also .

→
Tenders 9
"
April
were to be opened on
,
1969 .

→ His tender was still opened & total sum

of
Rs 24,846.12 were to be received
from Mr Verma .

his tender opened coz this

Despite his application , was b. was the
only offer/ tender submitted .

Contention both parties

of
:

plaintiffslouns.ee :
① In the first place ,
he had withdrawn his tender , before it was opened & accepted
Therefore no contract on the
behalf of petitioner .

② No valid contract was executed

by petitioner under Article 299
of constitution
of India

↳ No contract
Therefore b/w Mr Verne &
govt of Madhya Pradesh →

Meaning no
Recovery .

Respondent 's Counsel :

① Tender condition no 10 (b) ( i) → A tenderer
may be allowed to withdraw his

tender
of any
unit
of a division
before commencement
of opening of tenders

only cord
"

on the that at least one tender must be left after withdrawal

for consideration .

② As tender
this the
only filled violates
"

was
,
it cord to
(b) Ci) ,
so withdrawal can 't be

accepted .

VERDI : Coast
says that a
person who makes an
offer is entitled to withdraw his

tender
offer or
before its acceptance is intimated to him .

Just clause Govt 't take

Also
by adding such a can
away
the
legal sight of petitioner .

refer to
As the request for withdrawal &
Article agg & 299kg
was not denied , petitioner asked
for it
, therefore there was no
offer
along with a slide 300
by petitioner when the tender was
opened .

Therefore ,
no contract → no
recovery
.

Of Constitution
of India .

Court also states that allowed & demand is

the wait
petition is
against the
petitioner quashed .
 Concept of majority →
Age 718 (usually)
But

Age > 21
( if legal a

Topic 5 - case material - case ( Khan1928had

v. Lakh a
sigh) ganglion has

appointed)
gelded
case
High Court been

wimmtt.fm#ebeeo%9eJbecausNeotaga7LfI&
Lahore
with minor
,

↳ contract
Case # MOHON BIBEE vs DHAR Mo Das Ghosn ,
19oz
about
↳ contract with minor with
prior knowledge age
turning Sept of 1895
gaurdianyfge
20 → 21 in
exists

people involved facts ④ Dhamodas Ghosh → Minor → Resident

of HOWRAH
,

Dharmodas -
loan taker I ↳
gaurdian → SM
togendanundinee Dasi
(Mother
) →
legal custodian
of
those
property of son

Togendra mother
movable & immovable appointed by Calcutta
-
Nandinee

Brahmo → Money
owner
of various
property High Court

m.a.mn?.i:Y: 7,!BD-*ODharmgdas
Datt
lender
"

loam
÷??!Mm !:b!9.
Ghosn need he his
.
so
matte one
of
lender
from at , " :*. .
.

hmong
a
loan taken of ,

Brahmo Datt 10500 Rs received advance

remaining 9500 Rs
July
.

,
20 1895
,
↳ his Kedarnath
advanut taken was in
dispute
agent →

④ Joginder Nandini Sent notice to Kedarnath (Attorney) stating DHAR Mo DAS GHOSH
→ →
→
a is a

on date 15
July 1895
minor ,
so can 't be a
pasty to contact

↳ to execution
5
days prior
of mortgage
④ Kedarnath
Mitter d
( agent of Brahmo dah →
took in
waiting
→
from Dharma das Ghosh that

ogusdogaton.Y.infoEYEfrom gaffatiafwuotppofann.jo?nfEY7quaevidFgeadidn
he
the
town
.
attained majority of H' Sune 1895

and on his word & documentation

,
he

④ Dharma das 's Gandhian →

filed I a suit
agreed to
give
him
money
.

In lower court
&
(Howrah)
stating
→ minor not fit to be
pasty to a contract

Questing ? → is the contract void

! or voidable ?
↳ voidable → see 64 & 65 on Indian contract Act , 1872
apply
b-Status
Restoration
of benefits
quo
→ in case
of voidable contract
← ↳ return
in both cases
the
benefits received (Here Rs
10540
Gunsel also stated that Dharma das blush misrepresented his
age (major)
of Kedarnath who is ↳ Sec
agent of Brahmo datt
115
of Indian Evidence Act ( applicable )

LOWER COURT → VERDICT → Favour

of Plaintiff → Mr Ghosh
↳ void contract I
 § Sec 64 - voidable contract
Restoration
I See 65 - void contract
Status Quo

Appeal ↳
in Calcutta
High Court :

favour Mr Ghosh
of again

Appeal in Privy
↳
Council ( British Highest Coast)
Till then
wanted use
Mr Brahm died datt ,
case continued by his
wife Monon BIBEE

of see
640065 ← Motion
d
Bibee vs Dharmadas
t
Ghosh ( name
changed in appeal after death)
also
restoration Plaintiff
ruffian"!:E7Y:Y;t;q÷wsw
no
in
Defendant
therefore Privy council
g.
or

1
Privy Council said : Contract with a minor is VOID -

AaB -
INITIO NOT VOIDABLE

void
Highest
court of from the
beginning
Commonwealth
Appeal
in
& also Estoppel not
applicable on minor for misrepresentation underEvidence
see 115
& pm*snag
.

Indian Act , 1872

④ Mortgage was released &

money
wasn't returned to Motion Bibee as ace to

Privy council
,
it was known that
they are
contracting with a minor .

↳
full knowledge of minority

④ Court denied under Sec 41

of Special Relief Act 1877
,
& denied any
Sort Brahm datt
of compensation to Mohon Bibee
of
'

on account .

④ Coast said
"

One who
"

seeks must do
equity , equity .

# Khan Gul vs La Kha

Singh ,
1928 Calcutta High Court :

d
↳ Minor sold
Plaintiff ,
immovable
property by misrepresenting himself for 17500 Rs .

↳
paid 8000 Rs cash
before Sub
registrar →
after receiving money Lak ha
Singh refused to
give posession of property seeking aid
of minority .

& Rs 9500 to latha

promising note
of Singh
.

Khan
gul requested → either restoration or
posession
Contract void valid ordered
→ .
→
specific performance of possession not yet coast return
of money stating that
the coast
of equity can 't allow a minor to take adv .

of
minority where he
himself is
committing the
fraud .