TC-08 (D)

TC–08 (R)
4th Dr. B.R.Ambedkar National Law University, Intra Moot Court Competition,2021
INTHECOURT OF CIVIL JUDGE, ROHINI, NEW DELHI
SUIT NO.-/2021
IN THE MATTER OF
Mr. Dev
. …. Plaintiff
Versus
Ms. Ruchika
….. Defendant
MOST RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED TO THE COURT OF CIVIL

JUDGE, ROHINI, NEW DELHI
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANT

4TH Dr. B. R. Ambedkar National Law University Intra Moot Court Competition,2021
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Contents
TABLE OF CONTENTS................................................................................................................1
TABLE OF ABBREVIATION.......................................................................................................2
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES...........................................................................................................3
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION.............................................................................................4
STATEMENT OF FACTS.............................................................................................................5
ISSUE RAISED...............................................................................................................................7
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS....................................................................................................8
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED.........................................................................................................9
a. Sec. 11 of The Indian Contract Act,1872...........................................................................9
a. Age of Majority under the Indian Majority Act, 1875.....................................................9
Sec.3 in The Indian Majorityact, 1875...........................................................................................9
G. Minor’s Competence To Contract...................................................................................10
PRAYER.........................................................................................................................................14
Page 1 of 18
TABLE OF ABBREVIATION
SERIAL NO. Abbreviations Full Form
1. AIR All India Reporter
2. Anr. Another
3. Art. Article
4. Ch. Chapter
5. v. Versus
6. H.C. High Court
7. I.C.A. Indian Contract Act
10. Sec. Section
11. SCC Supreme Court Cases
12. No. Number
13. All. Allahabad
14. Lah. Lahore
15. Hon’ble Honorable
16. SEBI Security Exchange

Board Of India
Page 2 of 18
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
Case Laws
1. Mohiree Bibee v. Dharmodas Ghosh, ILR (1903) 30 Cal 539 (PC) (India)
2. Kashiba v.Sripat Narshiv, (1894) I.L.R 19 Bom. 697 (India)
3. Latcharao v. Viswandham, AIR (1956) AP. (India)
4. Ritesh Aggarwal v. SEBI, (2008) 8 SCC 205 (India)
5. Radhey Shiamv Vs. Bihari Lal, AIR (1919) All. 453 (India)
6. Kamta Prasad v. Sheo Gopal Lal, (1904) 26 All. 342 (India)
7. Kanahaya lal v. Girdharilal, (1912) 9 A.L.J. 103 (India)
8. Bindeshri Bakhsh Singh v. Chandika Prasad, AIR (1927) All. 242 (India)
9. Shah Jethalal Lal chand v. Darbar Shri Ararwala Laxmanwala, (1953) Guj. 117 (India)
10. Govindram v. Piram Ditta, AIR (1935) Lah 561 (FB) (India)
11. . Nazir Ahmad v. Jiwar Das, AIR (1938) Lah 159 (B) (India)
12. Suraj Narain v. Sukhu Aheer, AIR (1928) All. 440 (FB) (C) (India)
13. The Bank of Rajasthan Ltd v. Sh. Pala Ram Gupta And others. AIR 2001 Delhi 58, 2000 (57)
DRJ 863 (India)
Page 3 of 18
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
Suit No. /2021
This Hon’ble Court has exercised the power conferred upon it under Section 9 and 16 of Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908 to take cognizance of the matter. Hereby, petitioner most respectfully submits to its
jurisdiction.
Page 4 of 18
STATEMENT OF FACTS
1. That Ms. Ruchika a 17-year-old girl enters in contract with Mr. Dev for the
construction of a small party house and a swimming pool at her back garden.
2. That Mr. Dev and Ms. Ruchika agreed on terms and conditions of the contract for Rs 6
lakhs as assigned for the work of construction.
3. That the constructions would be carried out in different phases and the payment will be
done according to the completion of the assigned work.
4. That after finishing the construction of small party house, Mr. Dev ran out of capital for
construction of swimming pool, so he demanded money from Ruchika to carry on the
work of construction, but Ms. Ruchika pleaded Mr. Dev to pay remaining 4 lakh rupees
out of his own pocket as she not in a financial condition to make that payment at that
instance, to which Mr. Dev agreed upon.
5. That after the completion of the construction of small party house and swimming pool,
Ms. Ruchika arranged a party inviting top film directors with the hope to get a new film
as a lead actress, which eventually turned out to be true, as she got lead role in the film
‘Toofan’ as she has anticipated. Ms. Ruchika appreciated the work done by Mr. Dev
and gave him the credit of her success; she also reiterated that she would repay the debt
of Rs 4 lakhs to him very soon.
6. That unfortunately her movie turned out to be a complete flop, and this resulted in huge
financial loss to Ms. Ruchika because of which she was not in a financial position to re-
pay the amount she owed to Mr. Dev. After taking Ms. Ruchika’s financial conditions
into consideration Mr. Dev concluded that if Ms. Ruchika agrees to perform (dance
performance) in one of the parties arranged by him, he would waive off the owed
money.
7. That Ms. Ruchika agreed to perform with utmost sincerity to which she practised day
and night to perform well in the event but due to this rigorous practice, it resulted into a
grievous spinal injury. That after consulting with the doctor she came to know the fact
that she cannot perform in the event under any circumstances whatsoever.
8. That later when Ms. Ruchika turned 18, she acknowledged the fact that she owed Rs. 4
Lakhs to Mr. Dev and had promised him to pay as soon as possible. Despite of her
financial difficulties she out of sincerity agreed to pay the amount of 4 lakh but in
Page 5 of 18
instalment of Rs 20000 per month till the repayment of the whole amount.
9. That Ms. Ruchika tried her best to pay the amount even in such difficult financial
circumstances but later after conducting an inspection she came to know that the
material used in the construction did not justify the amount of 6 lakh which both the
parties initially agreed upon.
10. That later Ms. Ruchika left with no other option decided to dispose of the property for
Rs 12 lakh.
11. That the applicant and the said proceedings are fit to be rejected.
Page 6 of 18
ISSUE RAISED
FOLLOWING ISSUES HAVE BEEN RAISED FOR ADJUDICATION IN THE HON’BLE CIVIL COURT,
ROHINI, DELHI
ISSUE A
Whether the minor is estopped to plead minority to avoid the contract.
ISSUE B
Whether the benefits can be restored from the contracts with the minor.
Page 7 of 18
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
A. Whether the minor is estopped to plead minority to avoid the contract

It is humbly submitted before the court that defendant Ms. Ruchika is not liable under the
contractual obligation as when she entered in the contract, she was minor resulting the
contract to be void ab into
B. Whether the benefits can be restored from the contracts with the minor
It humbly submitted before the court that Ms. Ruchika is not liable to restore under any
circumstances as the contract in which one of the party is a minor the contract is said to be
void.
Page 8 of 18
4TH Dr. B. R. Ambedkar National Law University Intra Moot Court Competition, 2021
COCompetition,2021Competition,2021Competition,2021Competition,2021Competition,2021Competition,202
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
[A.] Whether the minor is estopped to plead minority to avoid the contract
1. It is humbly submitted before the court on behalf of the defendant Ms. Ruchika, that she is not
competent to contract as per the provisions of the ICA, 1872, and thus not liable to pay the loan
amount of Rs.4, 00,000 to Mr. Dev for constructing the small party house and the swimming
pool.
a. Sec.11 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872:
Who are competent to contract? Every person is competent to contract who is of the
age of majority according to the law to which he is subject and who is of sound mind
and is not disqualified from contracting by any law to which he is subject.
2. A minor is not competent to contract as per the provisions of Sec. 11, ICA 1872, and thus any
agreement entered by or with a minor is void from the beginning itself 1. Contract entered with a
minor person (less than the age of 18) stands null and void, since either party cannot impose it.
Though the ICA, 1872 has not specified any clauses with regard to a contract entered into by a
minor and whether such an agreement is void or voidable, but in the landmark case of “Mohiree
Bibee v. Dharmodas Ghosh”2it was held by the Privy Council that an agreement with a minor
is absolutely void as per the Sec. 11 and thus the contract with a void ab initio and not voidable.
3. Young persons, are believed to lack both experience in matters of commerce and the maturity
to exercise considered judgment when entering contracts.3
a. Age of Majority under the Indian Majority Act, 1875.
A person who has not attained the age of majority is a minor. Sec. 3 of the IMA,
1875 provides that a person is deemed to have attained the age of majority when he
completes the age of 18 years3.
b. Sec.3 in the Indian Majority act, 1875:
‘Age of majority of persons domiciled in India
i. Every person domiciled in India shall attain the age of majority on his
completing the age of eighteen years and not before.
1
Joshua Nathon Aston, MCQ on Contract Law Vol. 1 (1989)
2
Mohiree Bibee v. Dharmodas Ghosh , 539,Cal 30,(Pc), AIR (1903)
3
Loo, Wee Ling. "FULL CONTRACTUAL CAPACITY: USE OF AGE FOR CONFERMENT OF
CAPACITY." Singapore Journal of Legal Studies, 2010, 328-51. Accessed April 28, 2021
Page 9 of 18
ii. In computing the age of any person, the day to 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.’
Thus Ms. Ruchika, being of 16 years of age, is a minor according to IMA, 1875 and hence, not
competent to form the contract and hence the contract entered into by her is void ab initio.
Page 10 of 18
4. In the case of Kashiba v. Sripat Narshiv4the honorable court dealt with the case of a 16 year
old Hindu widow. It was held that “her capacity to contract shall be regulated by the ICA, 1872
being the law of her domicile and she being a minor was not liable under the bond.”
5. Minor’s Competence to Contract
a. It is humbly submitted before the hon’ble court on behalf of the defendant that a minor is
incompetent to enter into a contract and any contract entered into by her is void ab initio.
b. In the case of Lathcharao v. Viswandham5it was held by the hon’ble court that, “as a
minor cannot enter into a contract, contract with a minor is void ab initio.”
c. In the case of Ritesh Aggarwal v. SEBI6 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, minor s cannot enter into a contract.”
d. In the case of Kamta Prasad v. Sheogopal Lal7, a bench of the court following
the ruling in Mohiree Bibee v Dharmodas Ghosh held that “a contract could be
formed only between competent parties.”
e. Again, in the case of Kanhayalal v. Girdhari lal8a suit on a promissory note against a
defendant who had represented himself to be of full age was dismissed.
6. In the case of Radhey Shiam v. Bihari Lal9 it was by that “a minor cannot be made to repay
money which he has spent merely because he has received it under a contract induced by his
fraud.”
Thus, though Ruchika, misrepresented her age to be a major, she could not be held liable for
paying back the amount of Rs. 4, 00,000 to Mr. Dev.
7. Ruchika, while forming the contract with Mr. Dev, a building contractor, was only 16 years
old, i.e., a minor and hence, the contract formed between Mr. Dev (Plaintiff) and Ruchika
8. (Defendant), for building a small party house and a swimming pool in Ruchika backyard is
4
Kashiba v. Sripat Narshiv, I.L.R. 19 Bom. 697 (1894) (India)
5
Latcharao v. Viswandam, A.P. AIR (1956) (India)
6
Ritesh Aggarwal v. SEBI, 8 SCC 205 AIR (2008) (India)
7
Kamta Prasad v. Sheo Gopal Lal, 26 All. 342 AIR (1904) (India)
8
Kanhayalal v. Girdharilal, 9 A.L.J. 103 AIR (1912) (India)
9
Radhey Shiam v. Bihari Lal, All. 453 AIR (1919) (India)
Page 11 of 18
void ab initio and thus, the defendant is not liable for paying back the amount of Rs.
4,00,000/- which she requested the plaintiff to spend out of his pocket.
[B.] Whether the benefits can be restored from the contracts with the minor
1. It is humbly submitted before the hon’ble court that though Ruchika, on attaining majority,
i.e., on her eighteenth birthday along with Mr. Dev, decided to alter the contract and makes
a new promise, but with past consideration, thus the new contract is not binding on Ruchika
and hence she cannot be made liable to pay back the amount of Rs. 4,00,000/-and cannot be
said to have ratified the contract.
2. At the age of 18; defendant Ruchika, acknowledged the dept taken from Mr. Dev for
rendering the past services and further agreed to pay the debt through easy EMIs of Rs.
20,000/- per month till the repayment of the amount of Rs.4,00,000/-. Ruchika, then
decided to dispose of her property, without making payment to Mr. Dev and thus the
plaintiff, Dev tried to restrain Ruchika, by putting enormous pressure on her in order to
recover his money, which he spent on the construction of small party house and a
swimming pool for the defendant.
3. The suit filed by Mr. Dev is not maintainable on the ground that a minor cannot ratify the
agreement even on attaining majority because an agreement with a minor is void and avoid
agreement cannot be ratified.
a. Ratification is defined under Sec. 196 and Sec. 197 of the ICA, 1872196-
Rights of a person as to acts done for him without his authority-Effects of
ratification- Where acts are done by one person on behalf of another, but
without this knowledge or Authority, he may elect to ratify or to ratify or to
disown such acts. If he ratifies them, effects will follow as if they had been
performed by his authority.197-Ratification may be expressed or implied.
4. Ratification, has a retrospective effect on the subject and binds the principal from its date and
not only from the time of the ratification, could be done only for a lawful contract, and since
the contract made between Plaintiff Dev and Defendant Ruchika is not lawful and is void ab
initio, thus on attaining majority it could not be validated through ratification.
5. In the case of Binde shri Bakhsh Singh v. Chandika Prasad10, it was held by the court
10
Bindeshwari Bakhsh Singh v. Chandika Prasad, All. 242 AIR (1927) (India)
Page 12 of 18
that “a person who had executed a bond whilst a minor could not, unless he had attained
majority, by executing a second bond of similar product, ratify or confirm the former
bond because the minor’s contract was void.”
6. In the case of Shah Jethalal Lal chand v. Darbar Shri Ararwala Laxman wala11, it was
held that “since the contract entered into by the minor during his minority is anullity and
unenforceable at law, no question of its ratification arises, and the consideration which
passed under the earlier contract cannot be imported into the contract into which the minor
entered on attainment of majority”.
7. In the case of Govind Ram v. Piram Ditta12, it was held that “subsequent stratification
by a person on attaining the age of majority of a transaction which was originally null
and void by virtue of the fact that the entered into it while still a minor, does not forma
valid contract which a suit can be maintained.”
8. Again, in the case of Nazir Ahmad v. Jiwar Das13, it was held that “a contract entered
into by a minor, being null and void, its subsequent ratification by the minor on attaining
the age of majority cannot form a valid contract on which a suit can be maintained.”
9. Also, in the case of Suraj Narain v. Sukhu Aheer14, it was held that “consideration
received by a person during his minority cannot be good consideration for a fresh promise
by him after his attaining majority”.
10. Further in the case of Bindeshwari Bakhsh Singhv. Chandika15it was also, along with
earlier declaring, held that “all transactions entered into by a minor are void, and
therefore a minor, on attaining majority, cannot take upon himself a liability which from
the point of view of law, never really existed, e.g., he cannot execute afresh bond ratifying
an old bond executed during his minority.
11. Hence, in the present case, Ruchika, on attaining majority cannot be held liable for paying
back the amount of Rs. 4,00,000/- as though she altered earlier contracts and had agreed
upon paying back the loan amount of Rs. 4,00,000/- to Dev at monthly installments of Rs.
11
Shah Jethalal Lalchand v. Darbar Shri Ararwala Laxmanwala, Guj, 117 AIR (1953) (India)
12
Govindram v. Piram Ditta, Lah 561 (FB) AIR (1935) (India)
Page 13 of 18
20,000/-, on attaining majority, but the consideration for this contract were past services of
building a small party house and a swimming pool, performed by Dev on the request of
Ruchika, while she was minor.
12. Thus, it is humbly submitted before the court that the contract with a minor is void ab initio,
hence it could not be ratified upon attaining the majority.
 It is humbly submitted before the court that Doctrine of Restitution cannot be made available
to Mr. Dev according to the given facts of the case.
Section 65 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872

 Section 65 of the ICA, 1872 deals with the doctrine of the restitution. When an agreement is
discovered to void, or when a contract becomes void, any person who has received any
advantage under such agreement or contract is bound to restore it, or make compensation for
it, to the person from whom he received it.
 The principal laid down in this section is that when the parties have entered into a valid
contract and some benefits have been passed under it and subsequently the contract is either
discovered to be void, the party who has received the benefits must restore them to the other.
Applicability of Section 65
 Section 65 is applicable only in the case of agreement where it was valid when it was entered
into and became void only at a future date.
 The Key Points of Doctrine of Restitution includes:
1. One party has entered into a contract with another for consideration.
2. There was some consideration involved in the said contract.
13
Nazir Ahmad v. Jiwar Das, Lah 159 (B) AIR (1938) (India)
14
Suraj Aheer v. Sukhu Aheer, All. 440 (FB) (C) AIR (1928) (India)
15
Bindeshwari Bakhsh Singh v. Chandika Prasad, All. 242 AIR (1927) (India)
Page 14 of 18
3. Both parties were competent to enter into a contract.
4. Thereafter, one party failed to perform his part of the contract, or the contract became
void due to unforeseen conditions.
5. Now the party which has paid any consideration as the advance in entitled to recover the
same from the other party and the other party in not entitled to receive an unfair
advantage over it.
 According to the above-mentioned key rules, the doctrine of restitution is applicable to those
cases where both the parties, at the time of entering into the contract are competent to do so,
whereas, in the given case, Ruchika, defendant, at the time of entering into the contract was a
minor, hence, not competent to enter in any contract.
 In the case of The Bank of Rajasthan Ltd. v. Sh. Pala Ram Gupta and Anr.16 it was
held that “an agreement or contract which was void and illegal from the very
beginning can never apply the provisions of this doctrine.”
Exceptions to Doctrine of Restitution

 Among several exceptions to Doctrine of Restitution the exception of “Where an agreement
has been entered into between incompetent persons- Contract entered into between
incompetent persons like a person suffering from insanity, intoxication or a minor will not
invite this doctrine to play.” is an important one which would apply to the given case.
Page 15 of 18
PRAYER
WHEREFORE in the light of the issues raised and arguments advanced, it is humbly
submitted that this Hon’ble Court maybe pleased to:
1. DECLARE, that the contract entered by Ms. Ruchika should be ordered void ab initio
2. DECLARE, that the doctrine of restitution shall not be applied in the aforesaid
contract
And any other order which this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to grant in the interest
of justice, equity and good conscience.
And for this act of kindness, the Respondents shall duty-bound forever pray.
Date:…………. Counsels for the Plaintiff.
Place:…………
Page 16 of 18

TC-08 (D)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

TC-08 (D)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

TC–08 (R)

INTHECOURT OF CIVIL JUDGE, ROHINI, NEW DELHI

MOST RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED TO THE COURT OF CIVIL

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANT

a. Sec. 11 of The Indian Contract Act,1872...........................................................................9

a. Age of Majority under the Indian Majority Act, 1875.....................................................9

Sec.3 in The Indian Majorityact, 1875...........................................................................................9

G. Minor’s Competence To Contract...................................................................................10

SERIAL NO. Abbreviations Full Form

1. AIR All India Reporter

6. H.C. High Court

7. I.C.A. Indian Contract Act

10. Sec. Section

11. SCC Supreme Court Cases

12. No. Number

13. All. Allahabad

14. Lah. Lahore

15. Hon’ble Honorable

16. SEBI Security Exchange

Suit No. /2021

Whether the minor is estopped to plead minority to avoid the contract.

A. Whether the minor is estopped to plead minority to avoid the contract

Section 65 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872

 The Key Points of Doctrine of Restitution includes:

2. There was some consideration involved in the said contract.

3. Both parties were competent to enter into a contract.

Exceptions to Doctrine of Restitution

Date:…………. Counsels for the Plaintiff.

You might also like