Introduction

• This case deals with minor contracts where the minor deceptively conceals his true age.

Facts

• In this case, the first defendant engaged in negotiations to sell a piece of land to the plaintiff while still minor and deceptively concealing his true age.
• The amount of Rs. 17,500/- was received as payment, with Rs. 8,000 paid in cash to the Sub-Registrar, and the remaining Rs. 9,500 secured through a promissory note payable on demand.
• The plaintiffs contended that the Rs. 17,500 had been lawfully paid to defendant no. 1, as the promissory note of Rs. 9,500 in his favor was discharged by another promissory note issued by the plaintiffs to defendant no. 1's brother-in-law, Muhammad Hussain, as per defendant 1's request.
• Additionally, the plaintiffs asserted having paid Rs. 5,500 of the Rs. 9,500 to Muhammad Hussain and expressed willingness to settle the remaining amount.
• Despite receiving the payment, defendant no. 1 refused to transfer ownership of the property.
• The plaintiffs sought either possession of the property sold or a decree for Rs. 17,500, the consideration money, along with interest or damages for breach of contract at a rate of 1% per month, totaling Rs. 1,050.
• This amounted to a request for a total of Rs. 19,000, which the plaintiffs proposed to be imposed against defendant no. 1's other properties.

Issues involved

• Whether a minor who has convinced a person to sign into a contract by fraudulently claiming himself to be a major is barred from arguing his minority to escape the contract?
• Whether a party who, as a minor, entered into a contract by making a false representation about his age, whether as a defendant or plaintiff, can decline to fulfill the contract while retaining the advantage he may have gained from it in a future dispute?

Observation

• Prior to 1903, doubts surrounded the contractual capacity of minors, questioning the validity or voidability of their contracts.
• The Privy Council's decision in Mohori Bibee v. Dharmodas Ghose (1903) clarified that a person incompetent to contract due to minority cannot create a legally binding contract.
• The law of estoppel, generally applicable, becomes specific in contract law, where legislative intentions determine exceptions.
• Indian High Courts align on rejecting estoppel for minor contract invalidity.
• Mohori Bibee case abstained from clarifying the application of Section 115 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (IEA) to minors.
• The prevailing view in India is that infants, using false age representations, can avoid contracts without estoppel.
• Equitably, minors may be compelled to restore benefits gained through misrepresentation.
• Stocke v. Wilson (1913) exemplifies restitution, where a minor, though contractually immune, must repay gains.
• Dissenting views suggest minors may bear equitable obligations for misrepresentation.

Conclusion

• In conclusion, a minor who entered into a contract by making a false representation about his age, though not liable under the contract, may be required in equity to return the benefit he received by making a false representation about his age, whether he is a defendant or a plaintiff.