BEFORE THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT, HIGH COURT

WRIT PETITION NO._____________________/2018

(UNDER SECTION 9 OF CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE)

AMRITAM

(THE PETITIONER)

V.

SUHANI

(THE RESPONDENT)

MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENT

______________________

MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENT

 TABLE OF CONTENT

LIST OF ABREVIATIONS USED……………………………………………..

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES…………………………………………………….
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION…………………………………………….
STATEMENT OF FACTS………………………………………………………
ISSUES RAISED………………………………………………………………..
SUMMARY OF FACTS………………………………………………………….
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED…………………………………………………….
PRAYER---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ISSUE 1: WHETHER THERE IS A BREACH OF CONTRACT BETWEEN THE
PETITIONER AND THE RESPONDENT?
[1.1]

ISSUE 2: WHETHER THE DEFENCE OF MINOR IS APPLICABLE IN THIS

CASE?.....................................................................................................................

ISSUE 3:​​ ​WHETHER THE APPLICAPIBILTY OF SECTION 11 OF INDIAN

CONTRACT ACT IS​​ V ​ ALID?..............................................................................

MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENT

 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

& AND

SC SUPREME COURT

SCC SUPREME COURT CASES

ALLD ALLAHABAD

BOM BOMBAY

AIR ALL INDIA REPORTER

Ors. OTHERS

SUPP. SUPPLEMENTARY

ILR INDIAN LAW REPORT

P. PAGE

S. SECTION

v. VERSUS

LTD. LIMITED

¶ PARA

MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENT

 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

CASES REFFERED

1. MOHORI BIBEE v DHURMODAS GHOSE

2. KHWAJA HUSSAINI BEGUM v KHWAJA MOHAMMAD KHAN
3. MIR SARWAJAN v FAKHRUDDIN MAHOMED CHOWDHURY
4. SIRKAKULAM SUBRAMANYAM v KURRA SUBHA RAO
5. GOPALKRISHNA GOVIND v TUKARAM NARAYAN
6. GADIGEPPA BHIMAPPA METI v BALANGOWDA BHIMANGOWDA
7. LESLIE (R) LTD v SHEIL
8. KHAN GUL v LAKHA SINGH
9. AJUDHIA PRASAD v CHADAN LAL
10. JAGAR NATH SINGH v LALTA PRASAD
11. RAGHAVA CHAIRAR v SRINIVASA
12. VIJAYAKUMAR MOTILAL v NEW ZEALAND INSURANCE CO LTD
13. 13. TUKARAM RAMJI SHENDRE v MADHORAO MANAJI BHANGE
14. SURAJ NARAIN v SUKHU AHIR

BOOKS REFFERED
● Contract and Specific Relief (11​th​ Edition, 2013)
● Mulla The Indian Contract Act (15​th​ Edition, 2016)

MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENT

 STATUTES AND RULES REFFERED
● Indian Contract Act,1872
● Specific Relief Act, 1963
● Indian Majority Act, 1875

ARTICLES REFFERED
● Can a minor enter into a contract,​
https://www.hg.org/legal-articles/can-a-minor-enter-into-a-contract-34024?
● Minor and Contract Laws,​
https://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/can-a-minor-contract.html

DICTONARIES REFFERED

● Black’s Law Dictionary, 10​th​ Edition.

● Cambridge Dictionary, 4​th​ Edition

MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENT

 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The Respondent has approached the District and Session court of Lucknow under Section 9
of The Code of Civil Procedure in the case of ​Amritam V. Suhani

Article 9 of The Code of Civil Procedure reads as-

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. 4 [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. 5 [Explanation I].—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.]

MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENT

 STATEMENT OF FACTS

INTRODUCTION:
The Respondent (Suhani) a renowned 16 years old actress by misrepresenting her age enters
into a contract with Petitioner (Amritam) for the construction of a small party house and
swimming pool in her garden for which the cost was Rs. 5, 00, 000/-. Both of them knew that
it was unrealistically low price contract but still they moved on with this contract, The
Petitioner constructed the house but ran out of funds and when he asked for more funds from
the Respondent the respondent said that she will give it later but for the time being pay from
your pocket and the petitioner did the same. The Respondent hosted a party to which she
invited many celebrities and director and she got a role in a big movie.

The Respondent told the petitioner that he has saved her career and she would repay Rs. 3,
00, 000/- from the money which she will earn from her movie, but her movie was a flop and
she was unable to repay back. The Petitioner asked the respondent requested her to perform
in a party which he was going to organize in order to pay the amount as well as to fetch good
contracts. But before the party, she suffered from a sprain due to over repetition of rehearsals.

Then she did not perform in Mr. Amritam’s party on the advice of the doctor.

MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENT

On Suhani’s eighteenth birthday, both the parties, on the humanity ground, decided to alter
the contract. Sansani acknowledged the debt taken from Mr.Amritam for rendering the past
services and further both agreed on the same point that Suhani would pay the debt through
easy monthly instalments (EMIs) of Rs.10, 000/- per month till the repayment of the amount
of Rs.3,00,000/-. But later she felt that the work which was done was not up to her
expectations and she estimated that her work would have only costed Rs. 3, 50, 000/-, she
disposed - off her property at the price of Rs 9, 00, 000/- without giving a single penny to
Amritam. When Amritam came to know about this foul play he put enormous pressure on
Sansani to repay the previous debt of Rs. 3, 00, 000, he also send a 15 days’ notice to her but
all these attempts failed.

Now Amritam has approached before the court of law to seek remedy.

ISSUES RAISED
The following questions are presented before this Hon’ble High Court in the instant matter:
1. WHETHER THERE IS A BREACH OF CONTRACT BETWEEN THE
PETITIONER AND THE RESPONDENT?

2. WHETHER THE DEFENCE OF MINOR IS APPLICABLE IN THIS CASE?

3. WHETHER SECTION 11 OF INDIAN CONTRACT ACT IS APPLICABLE IN

THE CASE?

MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENT

 SUMMARY OF ARGUEMENTS

1. WHETHER THERE IS A BREACH OF CONTRACT BY THE

RESPONDENT?
The Respondent would like submit that there was no breach of contract by the Respondent
as the contract entererd by the parties was not valid and there cannot be any breach
.

2. WHETHER THE DEFENCE OF MINOR IS APPLICABLE IN THIS CASE?

The defence of minor is applicable in this case because a contract with minor is null and void.
3. WHETHER SECTION 11 OF INDIAN CONTRACT ACT IS APPLICABLE IN
THIS CASE ?
The Section 11 of Indian Contract is valid. Every person is competent to contract who is of the
1
age of majority according to the law to which he is subject .

1
Indian Majority Act,1875 (9 of 1875)

MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENT

 ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

ISSUE 1: WHETHER THERE IS BEEN A BREACH OF CONTRACT BY THE

RESPONDENT?

The Respondent would like to humbly submit before the Hon’ble Court that there has been
no breach of contract by the respondent towards the petitioner as the contract formed
was itself void. The submissions on this issue shall be put forward in two folds, viz.,
[1.1] ​Capacity of minor to enter into a contract [​1.2]​​ Ratification of minor’s contract.

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

2
A. 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 respondent would like to submit that Sansani was sixteen
3
years of age, hence a minor she entered into a contract with the petitioner to build a

2
The Indian Contract Act, No. 9 of 1872

3
The Indian Majority Act, No. 9 of 1875, §3.

MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENT

 party house and swimming pool. Therefore the respondent was incompetent to enter
into a contract.
4
B. In the leading case of ​Mohori Bibee v Dhurniodas Ghosh ​it was held that contracts
entered by minors are void ab initio and therefore the respondent cannot be forced to
pay for the services of the petitioner. The petitioner cannot enforce the contract for the
respondent’s dance performance which she failed to do, as she was a minor then and
the contract was void.
C. As the contract was already void there cannot be any breach.
[1.2] ​RATIFICATION OF MINOR’S CONTRACT
D. On the Respondent’s eighteenth birthday, both the parties decided to ‘alter’ the
contract where it was agreed that the respondent would pay debt in instalments. The
respondent would like to submit that agreement with minors cannot be ratified when
5
they attain majority .
E. Ratification relates back to the date of making of the contract and therefore, a contract
6
which was then void cannot be made valid by subsequent ratification . An already
void contract cannot be ratified. When the initial contract was made between the
parties the respondent was a minor and the contract was void hence it cannot be
ratified.
F. If it is necessary, a fresh contract should be made on attaining majority and also with
7
a fresh consideration . In this present case only changes were made in the previous
contract and there was no new consideration. The contract was only altered and the
mode of payment i.e. EMI, was changed. Hence the contract is not valid and therefore
there cannot be any breach, obtained by him under the contract, or make suitable
8
compensation to the other party .

ISSUE 2. WHETHER THE DEFENCE OF MINOR IS APPLICABLE IN THIS CASE?

4
(1903) 30 Cal. 539
5
Nazir Ahmad v Jiwan Das, AIR 1938 Lah 159.
6
Tukaram Ramji Shendre v Madhirao Manaji Bhange, AIR 1948 Nag 293.
7
AVTAR SINGH, CONTRACT AND SPECIFIC RELIEF 162( 11th ed.,Eastern Book Company,2013)
8
Khan Gul v Lakha Singh ILR (1928) 9 Lah 701: AIR 1928 Lah 609

MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENT

The Respondent humbly submits that the defence of minor is applicable in this case because a
contract with minor is void ab initio and a void agreement cannot be enforced except it is for
the benefit of minors.

The Respondent while entering into the contract was a minor and hence this contract cannot
9
be enforced. The House of Lords in Stocks v Williams held that a minor even if fraudently
misrepresents his/her age even still that contract cannot be enforced and section 11 of Indian
Contract act clearly speaks that a minor is not competent to enter into a contract and no
breach of contract can be involved.

ISSUE 3. WHETHER SECTION 11 OF INDIAN CONTRACT ACT IS APPLICABLE

IN THE CASE ?

The Respondent humbly submits that the Section 11 of Indian Contract, 1872 is valid as the
minor is not a competent party to enter into a contract is put in one main fold

C. ​A natural person who enters a contract possesses complete legal capacity to be held liable
for the duties he or she agrees to undertake, unless the person is a minor, mentally
incapacitated, or intoxicated. A minor is defined as a person under the age of 18 or 21,
depending on the jurisdiction. A contract made by a minor is voidable at the minor’s
discretion, meaning that the contract is valid and enforceable until the minor takes some
affirmative act to disavow the contract. Minors who choose to disavow their contracts entered
may not be held liable for breach. The law assumes that minors are too immature, naïve, or
inexperienced to negotiate on equal terms with adults, and thus courts protect them from
being held accountable for unwisely entering contracts of any kind.
10
In the case Sirkakulam v Kurra Subba Rao , the Lordship while referring to the English
competency act, held that a minor is incapable to enter into agreement because the mind of a
minor is not developed to understand what are the basic concepts of contract are and what are
the essentials of a valid contract are. The other High courts has also held that a contract with
minor cannot be enforced unless it is made by his/her guardian or it is for the benefit of
minors.

9
Stocks v Williams
10
(1947-48) 75 IA 115: AIR 1948 PC 25

MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENT

In the given case the Respondent being a minor is not competent to enter into a contract
and a contract with minor is null and void and cannot be enforced because the court
cannot enforce a void contract

In this case the Petitioner extra money i.e. Rs. 3, 00,000 which was used for the
construction of swimming pool is not recoverable, and now it was the Respondent
property hence the money could not be recovered.

PRAYER

In the light of the issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited, the Counsel for
the Petitioner humbly pray before this Hon’ble District and session court to kindly
adjudge and declare:

● That this contract should not be enforced

● That the judgement of this court must be upheld and above writ petition
must be dismissed without any cost
● That the cost of the proceedings should be borne by the Petitioner

MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENT

And pass any other appropriate order as the court may deem fit in the interest of equity,
justice and good conscience

And for this act of Kindness, the Petitioner as in duty bound, shall forever pray.

MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENT