MEMORANDUM for DEFENDANT (TABLE OF CONTENTS)

TEAM CODE: M- 28 D

IMS UNISON UNIVERSITY, FUNDAMENTALS OF MOOT

COURT PRACTICAL 2024

BEFORE THE HON’BLE COURT OF DISTRICT JUDGE U/S 9 OF THE

CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 1908

IN THE CIVIL SUIT NUMBER – ______/ 2024

MR. RAVISH KUMAR.…….............................PLAINTIFF

VERSUS

BARKHA.....................................................DEFENDANT

SUBMISSION BEFORE THE HON’BLE JUSTICE AND HIS COMPANION

JUSTICES

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANT

IMS UNISON UNIVERSITY, FUNDAMENTALS OF MOOT COURT PRACTICAL 2024

[I]
MEMORANDUM for DEFENDANT (TABLE OF CONTENTS)

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF ABBREVIATIONS……………………………………………………….…..III

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES………………………………………………………….…....IV

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION……………………………………………….…......VI

STATEMENT OF FACTS……………………………………………………………..…VII

STATEMENT OF ISSUES…………………………………………………….……...…VIII

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS……………………………………………….……...…...IX

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED…………………………………………………..…………XII

I. WHETHER THERE WAS A VALID CONTRACT BETWEEN THE

PLAINTIFF & THE DEFENDANT?
1.1 Capacity of minor to enter into a contract…………………………….….....................XI
1.2 Ratification of minor's contract………………………………………..................……XII
1.3 Doctrine of Estoppels against a minor……………………………..................…...…...XII

II. WHETHER OR NOT THE BENEFITS ARE BOUND TO BE RESTORED

BY THE DEFENDANT TO THE PLAINTIFF?

2.1 Burden to prove the fact asserted is on the Plaintiff…………………....................…...XIV

2.2 Ratio Decidendi..............................................................................................................XV

III. WHETHER A VALID CONTRACT TOOK PLACE BETWEEN THE

PLAINTIFF AND THE DEFENDANT OUT OF NECESSITY U/S 68 OF THE
CONTRACT ACT?

3.1 Nature of Contract for Minors.......................................................................................XVI

3.2 Contracts of Necessity with Minors...............................................................................XVI

PRAYER…………………………………………………………………………….….....XIX

IMS UNISON UNIVERSITY, FUNDAMENTALS OF MOOT COURT PRACTICAL 2024

[II]
MEMORANDUM for DEFENDANT (TABLE OF ABBREVIATION)

TABLE 0F ABBREVIATIONS

Sr. No. Abbreviation Full Form

1. & And

2. % Percentage

3. AIR All India Reporter

4. AOC Article of Confederation

5. FRs Fundamental Rights

6. Hon’ble Honorable

7. No. Number

8. Ors. Others

9. Re. Reference

10. SC Supreme Court

11. Sec. Section

12. SCC Supreme Court Cases

13. UOI Union of India

14. u/s Under Section

15. u/Art. Under Article

16. Vs Versus

17. V. Versus

18. vis-à-vis With regard to

IMS UNISON UNIVERSITY, FUNDAMENTALS OF MOOT COURT PRACTICAL 2024

[III]
MEMORANDUM for DEFENDANT [INDEX OF AUTHORITIES]

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

S. CASES PAGE
NO
.
VAIKUNTARMA PILLAI V. AUTHIMOOLAM CHETTIAR [1914] IX
1. 26 MLJ 612
MOHORI BIBEE V. DHARMODAS GHOSH 1903 ILR 30 CAL 539 X
2.
STOCKS V. WILLIAMS [1957] 1 WLR 148 X
3.
SURAJ NARAIN V. SUKHU AHIR AIR 1928 ALL 440 XI
4.
SADIK ALI KHAN V. JAI KISHORE [1928] 30 BOMLR 1346. XII
5.
SURENDRA NATH ROY V. KRISHNA SAKHI DASI 9 IND CAS XII
6. 110
AJUDHIA PRASAD &ANR. V. CHANDAN LAL &ANR. AIR 1937 XIV
7. ALL 610

T.R. APPASWAMIAIYANGAR V. NARAYANASWAMI AIYAR XIV

8. AND ORS. (1931) 60 MLJ 117
SHIVGOUDA RAJIV PATIL V.CHANDRAKANT NEELKANTH XVII
9. SEDALGE AIR 1965 SUPREME COURT 212

HARIMOHAN V. DULU MIYA AIR1935CAL198 XVII

10.
BURNARD V. HAGGIS 9 JUR. N. S. 1325 XVII
11.
MEMORANDUM for DEFENDANT [INDEX OF AUTHORITIES]

S. STATUTES
NO.
1. THE INDIAN CONTRACT ACT, 1872

2. THE INDIAN MAJORITY ACT, 1875

3. THE SPECIFIC RELIEF ACT, 1963

4. THE INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT, 1872

S. BOOKS
NO.
1. MULLA THE INDIAN CONTRACT ACT (15" EDITION, 2016)

2. EASTERN BOOK COMPANY'S CONTRACT & SPECIFIC RELIEF BY

AVTAR SINGH, RAJESH KAPOOR

3. RATANLAL & DHIRAJLAL, THE INDIAN PENAL CODE (33RD EDITION)

4. BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY

IMS UNISON UNIVERSITY, FUNDAMENTALS OF MOOT COURT PRACTICAL 2024

[V]
MEMORANDUM for DEFENDANT [INDEX OF AUTHORITIES]

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Civil Court is invoked under Section 9 of the Civil
Procedure Code, 1908, by the Plaintiff. The relevant provision of law is read out as follows-

Section-9
Courts to try all civil suits unless barred.

The Courts shall (subject to the provisions herein contained) have jurisdiction to try all suits
of a civil nature excepting suits of which their cognizance is either expressly or impliedly
barred.

1
[Explanation I].--A suit in which the right to property or to an office is contested is a suit of
a civil nature, notwithstanding that such right may depend entirely on the decision of
questions as to religious rites or ceremonies.

2
[Explanation II].--For the purposes of this section, it is immaterial whether or not any fees
are attached to the office referred to in Explanation I or whether or not such office is
attached to a particular place.]

The Council most humbly and respectfully, submits that this Hon'ble Court has the requisite
subject matter jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate this matter.

The present memorial on behalf of the defendant sets forth the facts, contentions and
arguments in the present case.

IMS UNISON UNIVERSITY, FUNDAMENTALS OF MOOT COURT PRACTICAL 2024

[VI]
MEMORANDUM for DEFENDANT [INDEX OF AUTHORITIES]

STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. Barkha is a well-known celebrity who wishes to build a small party house and
swimming pool in her backyard, for which she submits a tender while misrepresenting
her age above 18. Mr. Ravish Kumar accepts the tender at an agreed-upon price of Rs.
5,00,000, which is to be paid in installments.
2. The construction then began; after a while, the modest party house was completed,
and there was now a lack of raw materials and funds for further development. When
Barkha was informed of the situation, she asked Mr. Ravish Kumar to use money
from his own pocket for the time being because she promised to refund the money
once she secured a new contract for her film. Mr. Ravish then invested Rs. 3,00,000
on additional construction.
3. Barkha then planned the party, at which she was given a film; she accepted the offer
and promised Mr. Kumar that she would pay him the money as soon as the film was
finished. However, because her film was a flop, she was unable to repay Mr. Kumar
the sum of Rs.3,00,000 in full.
4. Mr. Kumar forced Barkha to perform a dance at a party he hosted to secure building
contracts from wealthy individuals in exchange for a debt of Rs.3,00,000. However,
continuous dance rehearsals caused a leg strain, preventing her from performing
during the occasion.
5. On Barkha's 18th birthday, they agreed to change the contract. Barkha acknowledged
a debt of Rs.3,00,000 to Mr. Kumar for past services, and agreed to pay Rs.10,000/-
every month as EMI for the complete sum.
6. Barkha expressed concerns about Mr. Kumar's work not meeting specifications and
the usage of inappropriate materials. She calculated a cost of Rs 3,50,000 only.
Barkha sold her property for Rs. 9,00,000 without repaying Mr. Kumar's loan. Mr.
Kumar put a lot of pressure on Barkha to collect the money after learning about it.
7. Mr. Kumar attempted to retrieve the money from Barkha but was unsuccessful. He
sent a notice to reimburse the money in 5 days but received no response. As a result,
Mr. Kumar filed the present suit.

IMS UNISON UNIVERSITY, FUNDAMENTALS OF MOOT COURT PRACTICAL 2024

[VII]
MEMORANDUM for DEFENDANT [INDEX OF AUTHORITIES]

IMS UNISON UNIVERSITY, FUNDAMENTALS OF MOOT COURT PRACTICAL 2024

[VIII]
MEMORANDUM for DEFENDANT [SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS]

STATEMENT OF ISSUES

ISSUE I

WHETHER THERE WAS A VALID CONTRACT BETWEEN THE PLAINTIFF &

THE DEFENDANT?

ISSUE II

WHETHER OR NOT THE BENEFITS ARE BOUND TO BE RESTORED BY THE

DEFENDANT TO THE PLAINTIFF?

ISSUE III

WHETHER A VALID CONTRACT TOOK PLACE BETWEEN THE PLAINTIFF

AND THE DEFENDANT OUT OF NECESSITY U/S 68 OF THE CONTRACT ACT?
MEMORANDUM for DEFENDANT [INDEX OF AUTHORITIES]

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

ISSUE I - WHETHER THERE WAS A VALID CONTRACT BETWEEN THE

PLAINTIFF & THE DEFENDANT?

It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court that the defendant contends in lieu of cited
judgements that the contract was invalid. Moreover, the contract was void ab initio by virtue
of section 111 of Indian Contract Act, 1872. In Vaikuntarma Pillai V. Authimoolam
Chettiar2, the Madras High Court has held that there is a statutory provision that the minor
being incompetent to contract is incapable of incurring any liability for any debt. The law of
estoppels cannot overrule his provision to make him liable.

ISSUE II. WHETHER OR NOT THE BENEFITS ARE BOUND TO BE RESTORED

BY THE DEFENDANT TO THE PLAINTIFF?

The Defendant's counsel argues that the Defendant is not obligated to restore benefits to the
plaintiff due to the burden of proof on the plaintiff and the weightage of ratio decidendi. The
plaintiff, Mr. Ravish Kumar, seeks restitution of the plea and seeks relief from the defendant,
Ms. Barkha. The burden of proof shifts during a proceeding when Barkha's refusal to pay the
loan and alleging fraud shifts the burden to the plaintiff. The defendant's minority factor set
Barkha free from liabilities, and the burden again shifts to the plaintiff to counter the fact.
The court also considers the weightage of ratio decidendi, which suggests that if Section 65
of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 is used against a minor defendant, all agreements by them
would be upheld and enforced, thereby exposing minors to liability and allowing mischief.

ISSUE III. WHETHER A VALID CONTRACT TOOK PLACE BETWEEN THE

PLAINTIFF AND THE DEFENDANT OUT OF NECESSITY U/S 68 OF THE
CONTRACT ACT?

The defendant argues that a valid contract did not occur between the plaintiff and the
defendant out of necessity under Section 68 of the Contract Act. This is supported by various
sub-contentions, including the nature of contracts for minors, contracts of necessity with
minors, and the consequences of contracting with a minor. The Indian Contract Act, 1872

1
Section 11. 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
Vaikuntarma Pillai V. AuthimoolamChettiar [1914] 26 MLJ 612
IMS UNISON UNIVERSITY, FUNDAMENTALS OF MOOT COURT PRACTICAL 2024
[X]
MEMORANDUM for DEFENDANT [INDEX OF AUTHORITIES]

defines contracts as agreements enforceable by law, and minors cannot be sued for breach of
contract. In 1903, Mohri Bibi V. Dharmodas Ghose's case established that a contract cannot
exist unless the parties have the right to enter into the contract under Section 10. Contracts of
necessity with minors are different from invalid contracts, as they refer to goods or services
required for the welfare and well-being of children, such as food, clothing, and shelter.

In cases where minors are held liable for wrongful acts arising from contracts, courts have
clarified that minors cannot be sued for breach of promise or wrongful acts. However, if the
tort is unrelated to the contract, minors can take responsibility for it, as established in
Burnard V. Haggi3s.

3
9 JUR. N. S. 1325
IMS UNISON UNIVERSITY, FUNDAMENTALS OF MOOT COURT PRACTICAL 2024
[XI]
MEMORANDUM for DEFENDANT [ARGUMENTS]

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

ISSUE I - WHETHER THERE WAS A VALID CONTRACT BETWEEN THE

PLAINTIFF & THE DEFENDANT?

In front of the Honourable Court, the defendant would like to humbly argue that there was
never a legally binding contract between the defendant and the plaintiff. The issue by the
counsel shall be put forward in three folds, viz.,

[1.1] CAPACITY OF MINOR TO ENTER INTO A CONTRACT –

Section 11 of the Indian Contract Act states," 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." The defendant
would like to submit that Mr. Barkha was hence a minor entered into a contract with the
plaintiff to build a swimming pool in her backyard. Therefore, the defendant was incompetent
to enter into a contract.
In the leading case of MohoriBibee V. Dharmodas Ghosh4 it was held any agreement or
deed in which minor is party to it or is included in such contact by any way, such deed or
agreement shall be declared null and void because such agreement is no agreement in the
eyes of law and therefore the defendant cannot be charged to pay for the services of the
plaintiff.
The House of Lords in Stocks V. Williams5, held that a minor even if fraudulently
misrepresents his/ her age even still that contract cannot be enforced, when read with section
11 of Indian Contract act evidently states that a minor lacks the capacity to engage into a
contract, and that if they do, the contract between the parties is invalid.

4
Mohori Bibee V. Dharmodas Ghosh 1903 ILR 30 Cal 539
5
Stocks V. Williams [1957] 1 WLR 148
MEMORANDUM for DEFENDANT [ARGUMENTS]

|1.2] RATIFICATION OF MINOR’S CONTRACT –

Both parties decided to "alter" the contract, where it was stipulated that the response would
pay the amount in instalments, on the defendant's eighteenth birthday. The defendant would
like to bring up the fact that even when a person reaches majority, an agreement with a minor
cannot be ratified.
Ratification relates back to the date of making of the contract and therefore, a contract which
was then void cannot be made valid by subsequent ratification. An already void ab initio
contract cannot be ratified.
Further in Suraj Narain V. Sukhu Ahir6, the court held that consideration taken by minor
during his minority cannot be a good consideration for minor for any promise made by minor
on attaining majority.
It should be emphasized that, upon reaching majority, a new contract should be made with a
fresh consideration, and upon ratification of a contract, a new contract should be made. In the
present case, no fresh consideration was provided; just the terms of the prior contract were
modified. The sole change to the contract was the EMI payment method. And because of this,
the agreement is invalid, and neither party may claim violation of the agreement or seek to
hold the other party accountable for damages that are due.

[1.3] DOCTRINE OF ESTOPPELS AGAINST A MINOR –

Estoppel means a man's own act or acceptance stops or closes his mouth to allege or plead the
truth. There is no estoppel against a minor. If a minor enters into a contract by unfair/fraud
ways, falsely claiming himself to be a major. Then later on he can plead his minority status as
a defence.
Section 1157 of the Indian Evidence Act did not allow the minor to plead his minority in the
case of Mohiri Bibi. As per the Privy Council when the party knows about the minor's age
then this principle cannot be applied. In the light of the various rulings of the different High
Courts of India, it should be noted that a minor can plead a minority as mitigation even if, at
the time of the arrangement, she wrongly declared that she was not a minor.

6
Suraj Narain V. Sukhu Ahir AIR 1928 All 440
7
115 Estoppel. —When one person has, by his declaration, act or omission, intentionally caused or permitted
another person to believe a thing to be true and to act upon such belief, neither he nor his representative shall
be allowed, in any suit or proceeding between himself and such person or his representative, to deny the truth of
that thing.
MEMORANDUM for DEFENDANT [ARGUMENTS]

The point was raised but not determined in the case of Mohiri Bibi V. Dharmodas Ghose,
but the point was resolved in Sadik Ali Khan V. Jai Kishore8, where the Privy Council noted
that – an act committed by a minor is null and incapable of finding a plea in court. The idea
underpinning the decision is that there should be no estoppel against a minor.
The position is – even though a minor has entered into a contract by distorting his age, he
can, at any later stage, plead “minority” and escape a contract. Minority in India is a fact and
not a right (as in England) and this can be found at any point of the proceedings, irrespective
of the circumstances surrounding it.
In the case of Surendra Nath Roy V. Krishna Sakhi Dasi9, the court held that if there is a
false statement on the minor's part and the seller is deceived by him, the minor will be
bound by the transaction. However, the court found no fraudulent representation on the part
of the minor.
Hence, the counsel for the defendant humbly requests the Hon'ble District Court to declare
the contract between Mr. Ravish Kumar and Ms. Barkha invalid.

8
Sadik Ali Khan V. Jai Kishore [1928] 30 BOMLR 1346.
9
Surendra Nath Roy V. Krishna Sakhi Dasi 9 Ind Cas 110.
MEMORANDUM for DEFENDANT (ARGUMENTS)

ISSUE II - WHETHER OR NOT THE BENEFITS ARE BOUND TO BE RESTORED

BY THE DEFENDANT TO THE PLAINTIFF?

The counsel on behalf of the Defendant humbly submits before this Hon’ble court that the
Defendant is not bound to restore the benefits to the Plaintiff, as firstly, because the burden of
proof of the asserted fact lies on the Plaintiff, and secondly, the weightage of ratio decidendi.
The above-mentioned contentions are enumerated as under:

[2.1] BURDEN TO PROVE THE FACT ASSERTED IS ON THE PLAINTIFF -

Whoever claims a legal right before a court depending upon the existence of certain facts that
he asserts and prays to the court to give a judgment in his favour, must prove those facts and
hence, owns the burden of proof. Onus probandi10 means the person who suggests a fact to be
proved must adduce some evidence to prove it. The burden of proof lies on the person whose
claim would fail if no evidence is given on either side. After the plaintiff discharges his onus in
a proceeding, it is on the defendant on whom the burden is cast upon to deny the suit filed
against him. Until the defendant provides evidence to support his claim, the decision shall be
decreed in the favour of plaintiff.

In view of both the matter cast before this court, the burden of proof obviously lies on Mr.
Ravish Kumar, who wants restitution of the plea while praying for relief from Ms. Barkha, the
defendant.
Also, since the onus of introducing evidence to prove a fact that they had constructed the
building as per the terms of the contract and had taken all the diligent steps to recover the loan
made available to Barkha for Rs.3,00,000/- but after her refusal to pay the said amount and
alleging fraud against her, it does shift during a proceeding. So, when the minority factor of the
defendant came forward it set Barkha free from all her liabilities 11 towards Mr. Ravish Kumar
and the burden again shifts to the plaintiff to counter the fact, which they were unable to.

10
"burden of proof"
11
Mohori Bibee V. Dharmodas Ghose
MEMORANDUM for DEFENDANT (ARGUMENTS)

[2.2] RATIO DECIDENDI:

In the decided case of Ajudhia Prasad V. Chandan Lal12 the court opined, if Section 6513 of
the Indian Contract Act, 1872 is employed against a minor when he is a defendant the result
of such would be chaotic, all agreements by minors would by default be upheld and enforced
against them regardless of the fact that any mistake, misrepresentation, or fraud was
committed or not.

A decree of restitution would impose liability to pay on minors and such would quash the
protection provided by the legislation to them. This would open a wide door for mischief and
misuse. People would continue to contract with minors with confidence furthermore it will be
easy for people to obtain documentary evidence to support the charge of fraud against the
minors.

In T.R. Appaswami Aiyangar V. Narayanaswami Aiyar & Ors. (1931)14, a case where the
money lender claims for restitution of his money under Section 41 of Special Relief Act
1877, but the lordship refused the situation because during the making of agreement the
lender was aware about the fact that the person is a minor. So, no restitution exists because
there was full knowledge.

Thus, the counsel for the defendant pleads that the suit for restitution and grant of benefits on
part of the Defendant be dismissed.

12
Ajudhia Prasad &Anr. V. Chandan Lal &Anr. AIR 1937 ALL 610
13
Obligation of a person who has received advantage under void agreement, or contract that becomes void.
14
T.R AppaswamiAiyangar V. Narayanaswami Aiyar and Ors. (1931) 60 MLJ 117
MEMORANDUM for DEFENDANT [PRAYER]

ISSUE III. WHETHER A VALID CONTRACT TOOK PLACE BETWEEN THE

PLAINTIFF AND THE DEFENDANT OUT OF NECESSITY U/S 68 OF THE
CONTRACT ACT?

The counsel on behalf of the Defendant humbly submits before this Hon’ble court that a valid
contract did not take place between the Plaintiff and the Defendant out of necessity under
Section 68 of the Contract Act. This contention of the defendant is supported by the following
sub-contentions:

[3.1] NATURE OF CONTRACT FOR MINORS -

Section 1115 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 defines a contract as an agreement enforceable
by law. Since minors do not have the legal capacity to enter into valid contracts, contracts
entered into by minors are not legally binding. This means that minors cannot be sued for breach
of contract. Contracts made by minors are considered void.

In the 1903 decision of Mohri Bibi V. Dharmodas Ghose's16 case revolves around a mortgage
agreement between a small owner and a lender. The court held that a contract cannot be said to
exist unless the parties have the right to enter into the contract under Section 1017 of the Indian
Contract Act. The party capable of entering into a contract under this law must be of legal age
and of sound mind.

[3.2] CONTRACTS OF NECESSITY WITH MINORS -

The contracts of Necessity are different from invalid contracts for minors. Needs refer to goods
or services required for the welfare and well-being of children. This includes food, clothing and
shelter. Contracts for which they are necessary are considered fair and minors may be held

15
Section 11: 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.
16
Ilr (1903) 30 Cal 539 (PC)
17
Section 10. What agreements are contracts - All agreements are contracts if they are made by the free consent
of parties competent to contract, for a lawful consideration and with a lawful object, and are not hereby expressly
declared to be void.
Nothing herein contained shall affect any law in force in 1 India and not hereby expressly repealed by which any
contract is required to be made in writing2 or in the presence of witnesses, or any law relating to the registration of
documents.

IMS UNISON UNIVERSITY, FUNDAMENTALS OF MOOT COURT PRACTICAL 2024

[XVII]
MEMORANDUM for DEFENDANT [PRAYER]
responsible for breach of such contracts. This position is relevant because the child's needs are
important to life and well-being. Therefore, it is best for minors to ensure that they receive these
goods or services. Also, what is required is neither expensive nor beyond the capabilities of
children. Hence, there is little chance of minors being taken advantage of by unscrupulous
parties. The responsibility of the applicable contracts extends to the value of the goods or
services received by the minor.

Minors are not liable for other damages resulting from breach of contract. In addition, the
contract must be effective and of fair value. It is about preventing the exploitation of minors by
those who do not intend to exploit their vulnerabilities. While a contract is required, it's
important to make sure the contract is good for the minimum.

While the Act goes on to specifically set out the consequences of vitiated ‘consent’ in Sections
1918, 19A19, and 2020, it omits spelling out the consequences of contracting with a minor.
Nevertheless, a decision of the Privy Council, Mohori Bibee V. Dharmodas Ghose21 read the
Act as having given a definitive answer to this question and took the view that minors’ contracts
were void ab initio22 which meant that neither party could enforce it, nor could they seek to be
restituted to their original positions under provisions stipulating restitution in the case of either
voidable23 or void24 contracts. Indian courts have since invoked Mohori Bibee in bloodless
abstraction, as if it were an unquestionable axiom of Indian contract law.

It is prominent to consider the specific provisions related to mental incapacity and contractual
capacity for minors under the Indian Contract Act and other relevant legislation. These
provisions aim to strike a balance between protecting the rights of minors with mental incapacity
and upholding the principles of contract law. Under the Indian Contract Act, there are specific
provisions that address the issue of minor's contract for necessities. According to Indian law, a
minor's contract for necessities is considered valid and binding on the minor.

18
Section 19- Voidability of agreements without free consent.
19
Section 19A - Power to set aside contract induced by undue influence.
20
Section 20 - Agreement void where both parties are under mistake as to matter of fact.
21
Ilr (1903) 30 Cal 539 (PC)
22
not voidable or void
23
Section 64 of ICA
24
Section 65 of ICA
IMS UNISON UNIVERSITY, FUNDAMENTALS OF MOOT COURT PRACTICAL 2024
[XVIII]
MEMORANDUM for DEFENDANT [PRAYER]
This means that a minor can enter into a contract for necessities such as food, clothing, shelter,
and medical care, and the minor will be obligated to fulfill the terms of the contract 25.

Courts in India have a responsibility to ensure that minors with mental incapacity are protected
from entering into contracts that they may not fully comprehend. In such cases, the role of
guardians, caretakers, or legal representatives becomes crucial in safeguarding the minor's
interests and ensuring that they are not taken advantage of in contractual agreements.

In Shivgouda Rajiv Patil V. Chandrakant Neelkanth Sedalge26 the question arose as to whether
the minor partner (Chandrakant) who had attained majority subsequent to commitment of acts of
insolvency by the other partners could be held to be personally liable for the debts of the firm.
The Honble Supreme Court held that it was legally impossible for the Court to hold the
Chandrakant liable for the debts of a partnership that had already been dissolved before he
attained majority

If a minor enters into a contract, the contract is void and creates no legal obligation for the
parties involved. Therefore, minors cannot be sued for breach of promise or for wrongful acts
arising from the contract. In Harimohan V. Dulu Miya27, it was held that a minor cannot be
bound to a loan by way of surety. The Calcutta High Court also clarified that a minor cannot be
held liable for a tort if the tort is directly related to the contract and forms part of the same
transaction. In this case of 1934, the Calcutta High Court ruled that a minor cannot be held liable
for money lent on a bond. The court further explained that if the tort is directly connected to the
contract and is a part of the same transaction, the minor cannot be held liable in tort. The court
also stated that "you cannot convert a contract into a tort to enable you to sue an infant"

However, if the tort is unrelated to the contract, minors can take responsibility for it, as held in
Burnard V. Haggis28. In this case, the minor hires a horse to ride and undertakes not to use that
horse for jumping. However, the minor later gave the horse to his friend who jumped, thereby
injuring the horse. Since the tort is not part of the contract, the minor is liable for inflicting
injuries to the horse. This case of 1863 established that a minor can be held liable in tort when
the tort that is unrelated to a contract.
25
Swaminathan & Surana, 2018
26
AIR 1965 SUPREME COURT 212
27
AIR1935CAL198
28
9 Jur. N. S. 1325
IMS UNISON UNIVERSITY, FUNDAMENTALS OF MOOT COURT PRACTICAL 2024
[XIX]
MEMORANDUM for DEFENDANT [PRAYER]

PRAYER

Wherefore, in the light of the issues raised, arguments advanced, reasons given and authorities
cited, it is most humbly prayed before this Hon’ble Court, that it may be pleased to:

A. Hold that, there is no valid contract between the Plaintiff and the Defendant.
B. Declare that, the defendant is not bound to restore the benefits to the Plaintiff.
C. Hold that, a valid contract did not take place between the Plaintiff and the Defendant out
of necessity u/s 68 of the Contract Act?
And/Or

Pass any other order, direction, or relief that it deems fit in the interest of Justice, Equity, and
Good Conscience, all of which humbly prayed for.

DATE: ____________ (S/d)

PLACE: DISTRICT COURT OF INDIANA (Counsel for the Defendant)

IMS UNISON UNIVERSITY, FUNDAMENTALS OF MOOT COURT PRACTICAL 2024

[XX]