EXCEPTION IN CASE OF NECESSARIES SUPPLIED TO A MINOR

If a person is incapable of entering into a contract ,or anyone whom he is legally bound to
support,is supplied by other person with necessaries suited to his condition in life ,the person
who has furnished such supplies is entitled to be reimbursed from the property of such incapable
person.This is what is laid down in section 68 of the Indian contract act of 1872 .And since a
minor is incapable of entering into a contract ,this principle applies to him as well.

Meaning of “necessaries”

The liability is only for necessaries,but there is no definition of the term necessaries in the
act.We may consequently turn to judicial decisions to determine its precise import 1.An
illustreative statement of the meaning of the term is to be found in the judgement of Alderson on
Chapple v Cooper : “Things necessary are those without which an individual cannot reasonably
exist.In the first place,food,raiment,lodging and like.About these there is no doubt.Again,as the
proper cultivation of mind is as expedient as the support of the body,instruction in art or trade,or
intellectual ,moral and religious education may be necessary also…Then the classes being
established,the subject and extent of the contract may vary according to the state and condition of
the infant himself.His clothes may be fine or coarse according to his rank;his education may vary
according to the status he may fill;and the medicines will depend on the illnesswith which he is
afflicted, and the extent of his probable means when of full age…But in all these cases it must
first be made out that the class itself is one in which the things furnished are essential to the
existence and of reasonable advantage and comfort of the infant contractor.Thus articles of mere
luxury are always excluded,though luxurious article of utility are in some cases allowed.”

Thus, “ What is necessary” is a relative fact to be determined with reference to the fortune and
circumstances of the particular minor :articles ,therefore,that to one person might be mere
conveniences or matters of taste may ,in case of another ,be considered necessaries ,where the
usage of society renders them proper for a person in the rank of life in which the infant moves.
Where the funds supplied to a minor for the marriage of a minor female in the family the lender
may be able to get himself reimbursed from the property of the minor.the debt incurred for
performing the funeral obsequies of the father of a minor is a necessary.Where a minor is

1
J R Marwari v Mahadeo Prasad Sahu ,ILR (1909-10)36 cal 768,776

29
involved in the litigation threatening his property or liberty ,expenses reasonably incurred on his
defence may be incurred from the estate.

In Peters v Fleming,the court took judicial notice that it was prima facie unreasonable that an
undergraduate at a college should have a watch and consequently a watch chain and that
therefore it was a question of fact whether the watchchain supplied on credit was such as was
necessary to support himself properly in his degree.Parke said that aal such articles which are
purely ornamental are to be rejected as they cannot be requisite for anyone. To render an infants
estate liable for necessaries two conditions must be satisfied ;firstly the contract must be for
goods reasonably necessary for his support in his station of life and secondly he must not already
have sufficient supplies of these necessaries.This is the principle laid down in Nash v Imman
where an undergraduate in the cambridgeUniversity who was amply supplies with proper clothes
was supplies by the plaintiff with a number of dresses including eleven fancy waistcoats,the
price was held to be irrecoverable.

In Kunwarlal v Surajmal2, it has been held that the house given to a minor on rent for living and
continuing his studies is deemed to be supply of necessaries suited to the minors condition in his
life and hence found to be recoverable. In Jagon Ram Marwari v Mahadeo Prasad Sahu,it has
been held that wedding presents for the bride of a minor are necessaries although similar things
supplied otherwise may not be so.

In Sham Charan Mal v Chowdhry Dibya Singh ,money was advanced to a minor for defending
himself in certain criminal proceedingsd against him on a charge of Dacoity.The minor executed
a bond in respect of his loan and then used this amount for the purpose of his defence .It was
held that the amount borrowed was in connection with his personal liberty and it comes within
the term “necessaries” of section 68 of the contract act.In Kedar Nath v Ajudhia Prasad loan was
given to the minor on the mortgage of his property with a view to saving the minors from sale in
execution of a decree .It was held that this loan was for necessaries suitews to the minors
condition in life , and therefore even though the mortgage was vouid, the morgagee had still a
right of lien over the property mortgaged to him by the minor.

2
AIR 196 M.P. 58

30
In Ryder v Wombwell, it was observed that things like ear-rings for male ,spectacles for the
blind ,or a wild animal ,cannot be considered as necessaries.

Nature of liability

There are two theories relating to the liability of a minors estate for necessaries . According to
one the liability does not depend upon the minors consent.It arises because necessaries have been
supplied to him .It arises because necessaries have been supplied to him and is therefore Quasu
contractual in nature. The best statement of this theory is that Of Fletcher Moulton LJ in Nash v
Inman –“An infant, like a lunatic, is incapable of making a contract of purchase in strict sense of
the world;but if a man satisfies the needs of an infant or lunatic by suppling to him the
necessaries the law will imply an obligation to repay him for the services so rendered and will
enforce that obligation against the state of the infant or lunatic.The consequence is that basis of
the basis of the action is hardly contract.The real foundation is an obligation which the law
impose on the infant to make a fair payment in respect of needs satisfied .I n other words,the
obligation arises re and not consensu.”

In India the subject has been dealt with in chapter on ‘Certain relations resembling those created
by contract.”It provides for obligation of quasi –contractual nature.In England it is of a
contractual nature.

31