Introduction
Under Section 11 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, competency to contract requires a person to have attained the age of majority. In the landmark case of Mohori Bibee v. Dharmodas Ghose (1903), the Privy Council held that a minor's agreement is void ab initio, intending to protect minors from transactions beyond their mature judgment.
Ordinarily Devoid of Legal Effects
Because an agreement with a minor is void from the inception, it creates no enforceable contractual rights or liabilities on either party, which is reinforced through specific doctrines:
- Rule of No Estoppel: Even if a minor fraudulently misrepresents their age to induce another to contract, estoppel does not apply against a statute. The minor can still successfully plead infancy as a complete defense.
- Rule of No Ratification: An agreement that is null and void ab initio cannot be validated retrospectively. Consequently, a person cannot ratify an agreement entered into during minority upon attaining majority.
Equitable Obligations and Statutory Interventions
While the agreement remains void, absolute immunity risks turning minority into an instrument of fraud. Equity and statutory frameworks impose quasi-contractual and restitutionary duties:
- Doctrine of Restitution: In English common law, Leslie v. Sheill (1914) restricted restitution solely to traceable goods, refusing money restitution. Indian courts took a broader equitable path in Khan Gul v. Lakha Singh (1928), extending restitution to monetary benefits received under fraud. This approach was later codified under Section 33 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, which empowers courts to order restoration of benefits or suitable compensation to avoid unjust enrichment when restoring status quo ante.
- Liability for Necessaries (Section 68, ICA): Under Section 68 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, if a minor or their dependents are supplied with necessaries suited to their condition in life, the supplier is entitled to reimbursement exclusively from the minor's estate. The minor incurs no personal liability.
Conclusion
The legal regime harmonizes the protection of minors with commercial fairness. It operates on the venerable equitable maxim that minority may be deployed as a protective shield, but never as an aggressive sword to perpetrate fraud or retain unjust enrichment.