CASES ON MINOR'S CONTRACT

Identify any 5 (SC or HC cases post-1990) relating to the
enforceability of minor agreements
1. Krishnaveni v Shagul Hameed & Anr
When the sale agreement was executed with the respondents on 03.09.2007, the appellant
Krishnaveni was not yet 16 years of age. Despite being underage, Krishnaveni had committed to
buying certain real estate under the terms of the aforementioned agreement. An advance was
granted to the sellers for the property purchase. Via her mother, Krishnaveni filed a plea in 2010,
asking the court to order the defendants to fulfill their part of the bargain as per the sale
agreement.
The appellant’s mother, Gowri, admitted that Krishnaveni was a minor at the time of the sale
agreement. Therefore, she stated that no claim for specific performance can be based on such a
void sale agreement. The defendants, who were the sellers in the agreement, filed two
applications under Order XII Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Code.
However, the additional subordinate judge in Tiruchirapalli, Tamil Nadu, decided in an order
dated April 2017 that the defendants’ objections could be taken into account during the suit’s
trial and did not have to be considered as a preliminary matter. Consequently, the defendants’
application was dismissed..
On February 15, 2024, the High Court ruled in the case of Krishnaveni versus MA Shagul Hameed
& Another, asserting that a minor lacks the legal capacity to enter into a contract. Section 11 of
the Indian Contract Act, 1872 states that such contracts are considered null and void.
Consequently, any legal action based on the validity of such a void agreement may be dismissed.
The lower court had rejected this stance on the understanding that a minor could derive benefit
from an agreement.
The Supreme Court affirmed, "There is no dispute on the contention raised by the defendants in
the suit that the appellant was a minor at the time of the said agreement dated 03.09.2007," in
dismissing Krishnaveni's plea. Therefore, the High Court accurately concluded that the
transaction involving the minor was indeed null and void.
2. Mathai Mathew vs. Joseph Mary Alias Marykutty Joseph (2015) 5 SCC 622
Per the Contract Act of 1872, the Supreme Court underscored that to qualify as a contract, the
involved parties must be capable of contracting, thereby satisfying the age of majority requisite.
As such, a minor's contract is deemed void, and no contractual obligation can be imposed on a
minor merely on the grounds of it being in the minor's interest, unless the representation is not
made by the minor's natural guardian or a court-appointed guardian. The Supreme Court
concurred with the High Court's perspective, resulting in the dismissal of the minor's appeal.
It is crucial to comprehend under Indian law that minors are precluded from entering into any
contractual agreements, including property acquisitions. Nevertheless, parents or legal
guardians are empowered to make property purchases on behalf of their minors. In such
scenarios, the property will be registered in the minor's name and held in trust by the parent or
guardian until the minor attains legal adulthood. Throughout the purchasing process, utmost
consideration must be given to the minor's best interests, ensuring compliance with all requisite
permissions and legal formalities, and verifying the absence of any encumbrances or disputes
related to the property.
3. Raj Kumar v Nathi Devi
The plaintiffs filed a civil suit against the defendants seeking declaratory relief and a mandatory
injunction. The suit alleged that the defendants conspired to deprive the plaintiffs. The lower
courts ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, and this decision was upheld on appeal. The defendants
then invoked second appellate jurisdiction under section 100 IPC.
4. Meher Nigar v CESC Limited and Another
The petitioner had submitted an application for an electricity connection in the name of her
minor son. The Court, with reference to the Indian Contract Act, determined that proceeding
with the application in the name of the minor would introduce additional legal barriers. The
Court upheld CESC Limited's previous refusal based on the petitioner's son being a minor.
Consequently, the petitioner was directed to file a fresh application for an electrical connection
in her own name. The Court invalidated the original agreement as it failed to confer any benefit
upon the minor.
5. Pearls Dream Palaces Construction (P) Ltd. v. Vikas
According to the court's ruling, if it can be proven that the plaintiff was a minor at the time of
executing the sale deed, the sale contract should not be recognized as a legal and valid
document, and should only be enforceable to the extent of the plaintiff's share. Furthermore,
statutes are not susceptible to estoppel under the law. Therefore, a contract signed by a minor
cannot be considered binding under the doctrine of estoppel.

CASES ON MINOR'S CONTRACT

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CASES ON MINOR'S CONTRACT

Uploaded by

Document Information

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

CASES ON MINOR'S CONTRACT

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Identify any 5 (SC or HC cases post-1990) relating to the

enforceability of minor agreements

1. Krishnaveni v Shagul Hameed & Anr

3. Raj Kumar v Nathi Devi

4. Meher Nigar v CESC Limited and Another

5. Pearls Dream Palaces Construction (P) Ltd. v. Vikas

You might also like