BUSINESS LAWS

SEMESTER 1 ASSIGNMENT
CASE STUDY
SUBMITTED BY: Lokesh Joshi
ROLL NO.: 5287
COURSE: B. Com Hons.
SECTION: 4
SUBMITTED TO: Shallu Ma’am
Jager Nath Singh & others
Vs
Lalita Prasad & others
13 August 1908
1 Ind Cas 52
Jury: Banerji, J. & Richards, J.
 Facts
• This case is between Jager Nath Singh (appellant) vs
Lalitha Prasad.
• Lalitha Prasad and Bhuaneshri Prasad were the sons of
Madho Prasad, and after the death of Madho Prasad in
1882, his paternal uncle Dwarka Prasad became their legal
guardian as they were minors at the time.
• Dwarka Prasad held joint ownership of a piece of land along
with the two brothers which they inherited from their father.
• In between 1897 and February 1899, the two brothers
executed three mortgage documents and borrowed money
representing themselves as persons of full age.
• On 16 Feb 1899, the two plaintiffs Lalitha Prasad and
Bhuaneshri Prasad along with Dwarka Prasad offered to
sell the appellants Jager Nath Singh a 3 aana share of land
in the Village Khuraun for Rs. 8000.
• After some discussions, the sale deed was finalised on 28
June 1899 for 2 aana 9 pie share and the consideration
made was Rs. 5958-5-0 due to Shiubaran Singh and others
for previous mortgages.
• At the time of registration, the two brothers stated their age
to be 24 and 22 years old and also representing them to be
of full age before in the documents of 1897, 1898 and 1899.
• The plaintiffs filed a case in district court that they were
minors at the time of sale; that they were persons of weak
intellect and inexperienced; that the sale-deed was
executed under the influence of Dwarka Prasad who’s a
man of dissolute habits; and they did not derive any benefit
from the sale. They did seek to set aside the portion of the
property sold, of which the purchasers have taken
possession.
• Thus, the court ordered them to repay Rs. 5416-10-5 to
Jager Nath Singh as they had benefitted from the sale-
deed.
• Jager Nath Singh appealed against the decision in
Allahabad High Court.
• The High Court judges concluded that the sale-deed has
benefitted the plaintiffs Lalitha Prasad and Bhuaneshri
Prasad and thus they need to replenish the benefit they
received from it to the appellant.
• As the contract was formed with a minor, it was void ab inito
and it couldn’t be enforced.
• The court also said that the appellants were deceived by
the false information regarding the age of the plaintiffs and
as both the parties were residents of different cities, there
wasn’t any way for the appellants to know the truth.

Rules
• According to the Sec. 11 of Indian Contract Act, 1872, a
minor is not competent to enter in a contract and every
contract that is entered into by a minor is void ab-inito. A
minor is considered to be incapable of knowing what is
good or bad for him.
• The Doctrine of Restitution (Sec. 64 and Sec. 65) which
implies that “if a person obtained property or goods from
other person by making a false representation, he can be
directed by the court to restore it to the owner of property or
goods” doesn’t apply to minors.
• According to Sec. 33 of the Special Relief Act, the Doctrine
of Restitution is applicable against a minor where he is a
plaintiff. It is based on the principle, “He who seeks equity
must do equity”.
 Analysis
• The plaintiffs claimed that no restitution was needed as the
contract was void ab-inito according to the Sec. 11 of the
Indian Contract Act, 1872 which states a minor incompetent
to enter in a contract.
• As the contract was with a minor, it couldn’t be enforced
and was void ab-inito.
• As the minors at the time of contract formation were
plaintiffs in this case, the Doctrine of Restitution applies
here according to the Sec. 33 of the Special Relief Act.
• Thus, the minors were ordered by the court to replenish the
amount they had benefitted from the sale-deed.

Conclusion
• Although a minor cannot enter in a contract except some
exceptions, he has to restore the amount he has benefitted
from the contract. The Doctrine of Restitution applies when
the minor is plaintiff.
• If there is a way for the other party to know that the minor is
misrepresenting his age or knows that he is entering in a
contract with a minor, he isn’t provided restitution.
• In this case, as the appellants were oblivious about the age
of the minors and had entered the contract on the basis of
this false information and weren’t interested in contracting
with the plaintiffs if they knew they were minors, they were
provided restitution.