MOOT COURT CASE SUBMISSION- TYLLB (SEMESTER 5TH) ,2022-2023

BEFORE THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF SARDAM

UNDER ARTICLE 225 OF CONSTITUTION OF SARDAM
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION OF HIGH COURT
FIRST APPEAL.NO. _______ OF 2022

_____________________________________________________________

M/S.SHARMA & SHARMA

…PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
JAYDEEP PATIL
…Respondents
_____________________________________________________________

UPON THE SUBMISSION TO THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT

JUDGE
WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF DEFENDENT
SUBMITTED BY,
ROLL NO-
DIVISION-

1
TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE NO.

1) LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS USED 3

2) INDEX OF AUTHORITIES 4

3) SATAEMENT OF JURISDICTION 5

4) STATEMENT OF FACTS 6-7

5) SATEMENT OF ISSUES 8

6) SUMMARY ARGUMENTS 9-15

7) ARGUMENT ADVANCE 16-18

8) PRAYERS 19

2
 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS USED

LIST OF ABBRIVIATION

AIR ALL INDIA REPORTER

S.C SUPREME COURT
VS. VERSUS
H.C HIGH COURT
SEC. SECTION
PW. PROSECUTION WITENESS
U/S UNDER SECTION
DW DEFENCE WITNESS
IPC INDIAN PENAL CODE
NJ NATURAL JUSTICE
PC PROSECUTION WITNESS
SCC SUPREME COURT CASES
UOI UNION OF INDIA
& AND
ORS OTHERS
LTD. LIMITED

3
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

BOOKS REFERRED
______________________________________________________-
 C.JAMNADAS & CO.
 MP JAIN INDIAN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW

STATUES REFERRED

• CONSTITUTION OF INDIA 1950

• INDIAN CONTRACT ACT.

WEBSITES
• www.legalservicesindia.com
• www.indiankanoon.org
• www.lawfinder.com

CASE LAW
 Mohari Bibee V. Dharmodas Ghos.
 The Great American Insurance Co. Ltd. V. Madan Lal
 Suraj Narayan Dubey V. Sukhu Aheer & Anr.
 Sri Kakulam Subhramanyam V. Kurra Subba Rao

4
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The current case has been filed by the counsel representing the appellants under
this jurisdiction by the virtue of Article 225 of the Constitution of India
1950.Subject to the provisions of this constitution and to the provisions of any law
of the appropriate legislature made by virtue of powers conferred on that legislature
by this constitution, the jurisdiction of, and the law administered in, any existing
High Court, and the respective powers of the judges thereof in relation to the
administration of justice in the Court, including any power to make rules of Court
and to regulate the sittings of the Court and of members thereof sitting alone or in
Divisions Courts, shall be the same as immediately before the commencement of
this constitution. [Provided that any restriction to which the exercise of original
jurisdiction by any of the High Courts with respect ton any matter concerning the
revenue or concerning any act ordered or done in the collection thereof was subject
immediately before the commencement of this Constitution shall no longer apply
to the exercise of such jurisdiction].

5
STATEMENT OF FACT

1-Jaydeep Patil, a sixteen-year prodigy, citizen of Indiana was the recipient of the
"Sensational Voice of the Nation" award. He was an astounding singer, extremely
talented-not only in Rap, Rock, Hip-Hop and Jazz but also in Classical and Folk. He
wanted to develop his musical career by releasing fusion albums combining different
genres and by engaging himself on world music tours. So, he wanted a multi-purpose,
ultra-modern architectural marvel where he could have his recording studio, theatre - for
live musical performances and a roof top pool for hosting parties. He misrepresented
himself as a major and put the task out to tender.
2-Sharma & Sharma was a leading building constructor and infrastructure provider.
They offered to do the entire work for Rs.10,00,000/-. Both the parties knew that this
was an unrealistically low-price contract and the amount will be paid in instalments in
order of the completion of different phases of the assigned work
. 3-Jaydeep accepted their offer and entered into a contract for construction of the multi-
purpose building and for providing all amenities therein. According to the contract, the
ground floor was for parking, the first floor was for the music theatre, the second floor
was for the recording studio and the last floor for the roof top pool.
4-Sharma & Sharma completed the construction of the ground floor and first floor and
ran out of money and materials for further construction. They informed Jaydeep that
they could not complete the construction unless further capital was made available to
them.
5-Jaydeep had arranged a poolside party to which he had invited top music directors,
producers and other renowned individuals in the music industry whom he believed
would fund for his dream music albums and music tours. So he was desperate to have
the construction of the roof top pool completed as stipulated. He had requested for the
continuance of the construction work and further requested to spend the remaining
amount of Rs.7,00,000/- on the work out of their own funds and assured them that the
money would be paid to them as soon as his album is released. The roof top pool was
completed and the party was a success. Jaydeep entered into a contract with Yash
Producers who agreed to fund for the fusion albums and world tours. Jaydeep told Ms.
Asha Sharma, the Manager of Sharma & Sharma "Madam, you have saved my career.
Don't worry about Rs.7,00,000/-." Having this as a promise, Sharma & Sharma started a
new project. However, Jaydeep's new fusion music album was a disastrous flop. Social
media enthusiasts and meme pages massively trolled him for his raucous and bizarre
fusion music. He then found himself unable to pay the amount of Rs.7,00,000/- to
Sharma & Sharma.
6
 6- Ms. Asha Sharma compelled Jaydeep to render a music performance in her
daughter’s-birthday party . apart from relatives and friends she had also invited rich
people, in order to secure contracts regarding building , construction etc. and in return
she agreed to release Jaydeep from paying the debts of Rs.7,00,000/-. Jaydeep agreed on
this point and was ready for the Music Performance the party. He also wanted to get
back his lost reputation and start his career afresh. However, before the party, he
suffered from a severe sore throat due to over-repetition of rehearsals. Then he did not
perform in Ms. Asha's party on the advice of his doctor.
7- On Jaydeep's eighteenth birthday, both the parties, on grounds of humanity, decided
to alter the contract. Jaydeep acknowledged the debt taken from Sharma & Sharma for
rendering past services and further both agreed on the same point that Jaydeep would
pay the debt through easy monthly instalments of Rs. 20,000/- per month till the
repayment of the amount of Rs.7,00,000/-.
8- Jaydeep, later on, felt that the work done by Sharma & Sharma was not performed as
he had specified. He further pointed out that the material used for constructing was
substandard and not satisfactory. He estimated that this would have cost them
Rs.3,00,000/- only. He claimed that he had paid the money already .
9-Jaydeep then decided to dispose off his property, without paying a single dime to
Sharma & Sharma. When all this foul play came to their knowledge, they tried to
restrain him by putting enormous pressure in order to recover their money amounting to
a total sum-of Rs.7,00,000/- which they spent on the construction and amenities. Even
after such prolonged period and altered mode of payment, Sharma & Sharma could not
recover the debt from Jaydeep. As a last resort, they sent him a legal notice, stating that
the money shall be repaid within 15 days. However, Jaydeep did not send any
correspondence or reply to the said notice.
10- In this context, Sharma & Sharma finally decided to seek remedy from the Court of
Law in this regard. The suit was filed by Sharma & Sharma before the Civil Court of
Sardam, in the State of Indiana on the ground 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 Jaydeep Patil for Rs.7,00,000/- but now he refused to pay the said amount
and alleged fraud against him. They also prayed for injunction restraining Jaydeep from
selling the property until the suit was disposed off.
11- The Civil Court of Sardam heard the matter and held that a minor's contract is void
ab inito and thus set Jaydeep free from all his liabilities towards Sharma & Sharma by
upholding the judgment passed in Mohori Bibee v. Dharmodas Ghose. The plea of
restitution raised by the Plaintiff was rejected and injunction was not granted.

7
STATEMENT OF ISSUES

Issue One

WHETHER THERE IS A VALID CONTRACT BETWEEN M/S. SHARMA &

SHARMA AND JAYDEEP PATIL?

Issue Two

WHETHER THE JUDGEMENT PASSED IN MOHORI BIBEE VS.

DHARMODAS GHOSE NEEDS RECONSIDERATION?

Issue Three

WHETHER CIVIL COURT OF SARDAM WAS CORRECT IN REJECTING

THE PLEA OF RESTITUTION?

8
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

Issue 1: Whether there is a valid contract between M/s. Sharma and sharma and
jaydeep patil?

It is unassumingly submitted under the watchful eye of the Hon'ble high court of sardam
that contract between M/s. Sharma and sharma and jaydeep patil was void-ab-intio.

As a minor or an infant is neither valid nor voidable but is void ab-initio(void from
beginning)

Section 64of Indian Contract Act, 1872 is only applicable in the case, where the parties
both parties were aware that the contract was being made with a minor Any contract
with entering in contact are competent to make such contract and is not
applied to cases where there is no contract made at all.

Majority Act. 1875:

Majority Act, 1875 was enforced on 2nd March 1857. It is a law that was enacted to
introduce various laws relating to the "law of majority". Prior to the enactment of this
act, there was no surety or certainty about the age limit of attaining majority. This act
has basically fixed the age limit of attaining majority and i.e. 18 years of age. It states
that, every single person who is domiciled in India can only achieve the age of majority
only after the completion of age of 18 years, and not before that at any cost. There
comes an exception in the case were any particular personal law provides the age of
attaining majority only and if not provided than, else any person domiciled by India
shall only achieve majority after the completion of 18 years of age.

According to me any sought of contract in which a minor is party to contract or whether

he/she is involved in it shall be void. This perception is correct because minor or infant
comes in the category of such people who cannot give there free consent along with the
reason that they are not in a situation where they can think in a manner in which a
prudent or an ordinary person could do it. An agreement is a deal where free an equal
consent of all parties are given but in case of a minor there consent can be dominated by
major ones as a result of which, it leads to the violation of one of the condition to form a
contract, i.e. free consent a consent is said to be free when it is not caused by Coercion,
9
Undue Influence, Fraud, Miss representation and Mistake.

In Mohori Bibee V/S Dharmodas Ghose, at the end it can be concluded that 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. Any agreement with minor cannot be administered
against them.
Also, if a minor enters into a contract, then he cannot ratify it even after he attains
majority since the contract is void ab-initio. And, a void agreement cannot be ratified.

10
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

Issue 1: Whether there is valid contract between M/s. Sharma & Sharma and Mr.
Jaydeep Patil

The counsel on behalf of the Defendant most humbly and respectfully submits before
this honourable Court that Mr. Jaydeep Patil is not competent to contract as per the
provisions of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. For an agreement to be a contract,
provisions of section 10, Indian Contract act, 1872, must be fulfilled.

For an agreement to be a contract:

Parties should be competent to contract

There must be free consent of parties There should be lawful consideration

There should be lawful object

It should not be expressly declared to be void

The counsel on behalf of the Defendant must humbly and respectfully submits before
this hon'ble court that Mr. Jaydeep Patil is a minor, his consent can't be considered as
valid consent and the agreement is not for to supply necessities to the minor, thus it is
not a valid contract.

That Mr. Jaydeep Patil is a minor.

The counsel on behalf of the defendant most humbly and respectfully submits before
this hon'ble court that Mr. Jaydeep, being below the age of 18 years, is a minor and thus
not competent to contract under the Indian Contract act, 1872.

Determining majority

Age of majority, according to section 11, Indian Contract Act, 1872 shall be determined
according to law to which the person is subject. Therefore, if there is a difference
11
between provisions of Indian Majority Act, 1875 and those of personal law to which the
person is subject, his personal law will not prevail over Indian Majority Act, 1875.

In the case of Kashiba v. Shripat the honourable court dealt with the case of a 16 year
old Hindu widow. It was held that "her capacity to contract shall be regulated by Indian
Contract Act, 1872 being the law of her domicile and she being a minor was not liable
under the bond."

Age of majority under the Indian majority Act, 1875.

A person who has not attained the age of majority is a minor. Section 3 of the Indian
majority Act, 1875 provides that a person is deemed to have attained the age of majority
when he completes the age of 18 years. Thus, the counsel on behalf of the defendant
most humbly and respectfully presents before this hon'ble court that Mr. jaydeep is
below 18 years, he is a minor and thus incompetent to contract under the Indian Contract
Act, 1872.

Minor's Competence to Contract

The counsel on behalf of the defendant most humbly and respectfully submits before
this hon'ble court that a minor is incompetent to enter into a contact and any contact
entered by him is void-ab-initio.

In the case of Latcharao v. Viswanadham it was held by the hon'ble court that, “as a
minor cannot enter into a contract, contract with minor is void ab inotio."

In the case of Rajubala Dasi v. Nidhurama Pandit, it was held by the hon'ble court that,
"a contract is specifically enforceable against a minor if he has reaped any benefit under
the contract. Even though a minor cannot enter into a contract, yet, guardian of a minor
can validly enter into contract on his behalf."

In the case of Ritesh Aggarwal v. SEBI it was held by the hon'ble court that, "a contract
must be entered into by a person who can make a promise or make an offer. Else, the
contract will be void as an agreement which is not enforceable under law is void. Thus,
minors cannot enter into a contract." For a contract to be valid, parties to contract must
have a free consent. Consent is defined under section 13 of Indian Contract Act,
1872&14 as agreement between two or more people upon the same thing in the same
sense. Mutual consent is essential for every agreement and agreement is generally
essential for formation of contract. Therefore, no binding contract can be formed if there
is no consensus ad idem.
Thus, it is most humbly submitted before this hon'ble court that as a minor is not
competent to give a valid consent, hence contract with Mr. Jaydeep Patil is void as it
12
does not fulfil the conditions specified under section 10 and 13 of the Indian Contract
Ac, 1872.

'When 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 India, and not hereby expressly
repealed, by which any contract is required to be made in writing or in presence of
witnesses, or any law relating to the registration of documents.'

'Who are competent to contract

Every person is competent to contract who is of age of majority according to the law to
which he is subject, and who is of sound mind and is not disqualified form contracting
by any law to which he is subject.'

Section 3 in The Majority Act, 1875

"Age of majority of persons domiciled in India'

1) Every person domiciled in India shall attain the age of majority on his completing the
age of eighteen years and not before.

2) In computing the age of any person, the day on which he was born is to be included
as a whole day and he shall be deemed to have attained majority at the beginning of the
eighteenth anniversary of that day.'

13
Issue 2: Whether the judgment passed in Mohori Bibee v. Dharmodas Ghose needs
reconsideration?

The counsel on behalf of the Defendant most humbly and respectfully submits before
this honourable Court that the judgement passed in Mohori bibee v/s Dharmodas Ghose
does not need reconsideration as per the provisions of the Indian Contract Act, 1872.
Any contract with a minor or an infant is Null & void-ab-intio

Mohori Bibee v/s Dharmodas Ghose suit relates to the nature of contracts of a minor,
fraudulent false interference by him, enforcement of the principle of Estoppel, sections
64, 65 of the Contract Act, etc.

Name Of The Judges: Lord McNaughton, Lord Davey, Lord Lindley, Sir
Ford North, Sir Andrew Scoble, Sir Andrew Wilson.

The respondent was Dharmodas Ghose, who was a minor, received a loan from
Brahmodutt, a lender in Calcutta, by saying that he was an adult and had written a
mortgage deed (Mortgage Deed) in his favour to get a loan. At the time when the
mortgage was being considered for advance money, At the time of standing, Kedarnath,
the agent of Brahmodutt, had received information that the respondent was a minor; So,
he cannot execute the deed. But still he executed a mortgage deed from Dharamdos
Ghose.

The minor then filed a suit against Brahmodutt by his mother and guardian in which he
appeal to the court to cancel the mortgage deed, as he was a minor at the time of the
mortgage deed being executed. Justice Jenkins (Jenkins J.) who was a judge of the trial
court, Accepting the appeal of the respondent, he cancelled the mortgage deed.

The appeal against the order was also quashed by the High Court; Therefore,
the appellant appealed to the Privy Council. Brahmodutt had died at the time
of making this appeal. So, he was replaced by his successor, Mohori Bibee.
14
The following arguments were presented by Mohori Bibee:

While cancelling the mortgage deed, the court should have forced the minor to pay the
money (Rs. 10,500) under the deed Return it. In favour of this argument, he referred to
the Specific Relief Act, 1963 under which the Court has the power to pass such an order.
Under Sections 64 and 65 of the Indian Contract Act 1872, the return of the money
received under the deed cancelled may be compelled. According to the principle of
'Estoppel', the minor, who called himself a minor, cannot now be allowed to argue that
he was a minor while contracting.

The Contract made by the minor is null and voidable.

Verdict:

The court dismissed the appeal.

The principle of restriction cannot apply in this case because both the parties were aware
that the contract was being done with a minor. Under the Specific Relief Act, 1963, the
minor may be compelled to return the benefits availed under zero contract. But in this
case, the court does not think it appropriate, because when Dharmodas Ghose was given
a mortgage loan, the appellant knew that he was a minor.

Conclusion:
Based on the above principles, the Privy Council rejected the appeal of the appellant.

15
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

Mohiri Bibi v. Dharmodas Ghose. In this case, a minor had borrowed some money
from a money-lender by mortgaging his house. The money-lender moved to take
possession of the minor's house when he defaulted payment. The court, however, said
since an agreement with minor parties is void, the money-lender could not enforce this
contract. Indian courts have repeatedly used this judgment to abrogate minors from
contractual obligations. Hence, minors cannot enter into agreements unless some legal
provisions allow them.For example, a minor cannot transfer property as per the Transfer
of Property Act. He can, however, receive property from other persons under a legal
contract.

Rules relating to Agreement with Minor Parties.

Although, as a general rule, a contract with minors is void, we must keep in

mind the following rules as well:

1) A contract with a minor is void and, hence, no obligations can ever arise on him
thereunder.

2) The minor party cannot ratify the contract upon attaining majority unless a law
specifically allows this.

3) No court can allow specific performance of a contract with minors because it is void
altogether.

4) The Partnership Act also prohibits minors from becoming partners in a firm. They
can, however, receive the benefits of partnership and ratify the same upon attaining
majority.

5) The rule of estoppel under evidence law does not apply to minors under contractual
obligations. In other words, even if a minor forms a contract claiming majority age,
16
legal obligations cannot arise against him.

6) Parents or guardians of minors can name them in contracts only if it benefits them.
But even in this case, the minor cannot be personally liable.

A minor is one who has not attained the age of 18, and for every contract, the majority is
a condition precedent. By looking at the Indian law, minor's agreement is a void one,
meaning thereby that it has no value in the eye of the law, and it is null and void as it
cannot be enforced by either party to the contract. And even after he attains majority, the
same agreement could not be ratified by him. Here, the difference is that minor's
contract is void/null, but is not illegal as there is no statutory provision upon this.
No liability arising out of either tort/contract: A minor is incapable of giving consent,
and the nature of minor's agreement is a nullity and cannot be enforced. Suraj Narayan
v. SukhuAheer: In the concerned case, a person borrowed some money during his
minority and after attaining the age of majority, he made a fresh promise to pay that sum
and interest thereon, but this contract was not enforceable due to the reason that
consideration received during minority is not a good consideration.

Srikakulam Subramaniam v. SubbaRao- To pay off, the promissory note and mortgage
debt of his father, minor and his mother, the minor sold a piece of land to the holders of
the promissory note in satisfaction of the debt. He paid off the mortgage and got
possession of the land. But later the minor claimed that because of his minority the
contract was void, and he demanded the possession of land. But the court held that this
contract was for the benefit of the minor and was entered into by his guardian; his
mother and thus was a valid one.

The Great American Insurance Co Ltd vs Madanlal Sonulal In this case, a minor sued
the other party for not performing the promise, and the contract was entered by the
guardian of the minor with the other party and it was considered a valid contract.

The Plaintiff was Madanlal Sonulal a minor by his next friend Goverdhandas Mohanlal
and the Defendant was The Great American Insurance Co. Ltd. Incorporated in New
York, United States of America, carrying on business in Bombay at Apollo Street within
the Fort of Bombay. A minor Plaintiff was the only surviving son of a joint Hindu
Family carrying out business at a Devalgaum, firm named Surajmal Sonulal, the
business was carried out under the superintendence of Goverdhandas Mohanlal who was
the husband of the Plaintiff's sister and with whom Plaintiff Resides. The firm effected
fire insurance with Defendants company on Cotton bales. On the actual effected date of
fire insurance, the cotton bales got burnt and the Plaintiff sued the Defendant company
for the recovery of the loss.

17
Issues:

Whether the insurance made by the minor was valid. Whether the insurance company is
liable to pay the losses under the policy.

Judgment:

First, Defendant raised in the written statement is in effect that there was collusion
between the Plaintiff and the agent of Defendant's company and in fact, the insurance
came in effect after the fire on that ground Defendants resisted their lability. The
minority of the Plaintiff was not pleaded so the learned judge concluded since the
minority is not pleaded so it was not necessary to answer the issue and concluded that
the insurance was valid. In the case of collusion and fraud, he navigated and the decision
was given in the favor of the Plaintiff.

The Defendant appealed on the ground that the Plaintiff was minor at the time of
insurance so the Plaintiff being minor the insurance should be void ab initio. The court
held that the insurance was entered by the Goverdhandas on behalf of the minor through
agent Trimbaksha with Puranmal on behalf of Defendant's company who had
knowledge of Plaintiff being minor which makes company know about the fact of the
Plaintiff being minor. The Goverdhandas was a Guardian within the meaning of the Act,
which states the person having the care of the person of a minor or of his property, or of
both his person and property and the insurance was made for the benefit of a minor and
his property so the insurance was held valid. The appeal failed and was dismissed with
costs. The parties agreed on the insurance company paying Rs. 7000 to the Plaintiff.

18
PRAYERS

Wherefore, in the light of the issues raised, arguments advancedand authorities cited, it
is most humbly and respectfully prayed before this Hon'ble Court to adjudge and declare
that:

The contract between

M/s Sharma & Sharma and Mr.Jaydeep Patil was null and void ab-inito.

The judgment passed in Mohori Bibee V. Dharmodas need not be reconsider.

And any other order which this hon'ble court may be pleased to grant in the interest of
justice, equity and good conscience.

All of which is most humbly and respectfully submitted.

All of which is most humbly and respectfully submitted

Place: __________________________________________
S/d

COUNSEL FOR DEFEDENT

19