Issue
Decision
Motilal Mansukhram
v.
Maneklal Dayabhai
(High Court Of Judicature At Bombay)
Civil Extraordinary Application No. 7 Of 1920 | 22-06-1920
Norman Macleod, C J
[1] It would have been more satisfactory if the Small Cause Court Judge had given some reasons for coming to the conclusion he did contrary to that he arrived at nine months previously. Still the Privy Council ruling in Mohori Bibee v. Dharmodas Ghose (1903) I.L.R. 30 Cal. 539 : 5 Bom. L.R. 421, P.C. is too clear for us to consider any other decision possible. It may be said that a contract purporting to be made between two persons competent to contract, after it is discovered that one of the persons was a minor at the date of the contract, becomes thereby an agreement unenforceable by law, and therefore void under Section 2 of the Indian Contract Act, and until it was discovered to be void on the evidence, because one of the parties was a minor, it purported to be a perfectly good contract, But their Lordships of the Privy Council distinctly say that Section 65 starts from the basis of there being an agreement or contract between competent parties; and has no application to a case in which there never was, and never could have been any contract, and though according to the argument of the applicant s pleader that decision conflicts with the words of the section, still as long as it stands it is binding on us. The rule, therefore, must be discharged with costs.
[1] It would have been more satisfactory if the Small Cause Court Judge had given some reasons for coming to the conclusion he did contrary to that he arrived at nine months previously. Still the Privy Council ruling in Mohori Bibee v. Dharmodas Ghose (1903) I.L.R. 30 Cal. 539 : 5 Bom. L.R. 421, P.C. is too clear for us to consider any other decision possible. It may be said that a contract purporting to be made between two persons competent to contract, after it is discovered that one of the persons was a minor at the date of the contract, becomes thereby an agreement unenforceable by law, and therefore void under Section 2 of the Indian Contract Act, and until it was discovered to be void on the evidence, because one of the parties was a minor, it purported to be a perfectly good contract, But their Lordships of the Privy Council distinctly say that Section 65 starts from the basis of there being an agreement or contract between competent parties; and has no application to a case in which there never was, and never could have been any contract, and though according to the argument of the applicant s pleader that decision conflicts with the words of the section, still as long as it stands it is binding on us. The rule, therefore, must be discharged with costs.
Advocates List
For The Appearing Parties ----.
For Petitioner
- Shekhar Naphade
- Mahesh Agrawal
- Tarun Dua
For Respondent
- S. Vani
- B. Sunita Rao
- Sushil Kumar Pathak
Bench List
HONBLE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. NORMAN MACLEOD
HONBLE MR. JUSTICE FAWCETT
Eq Citation
1920 (22) BOMLR 1195
59 IND. CAS. 245
AIR 1921 BOM 147
LQ/BomHC/1920/93
HeadNote
Contract Act, 1872 — Ss. 11 & 65 — Minor's contract — Effect of — Held, S. 65 starts from the basis of there being an agreement or contract between competent parties and has no application to a case in which there never was, and never could have been any contract — Indian Contract Act, 1872, Ss. 11 & 2
Thank you for subscribing! Please check your inbox to opt-in.
Oh no, error happened! Please check the email address and/or try again.
Deleting Note..
Are you sure you want to move this note to trash?
