EFFECTS OF MINOR AGREEMENT
3. Doctrine of restitution-
If a minor acquires property or goods by falsely claiming to be of legal age, they can be required to return the property only if it can be traced and is still in their possession. This principle is known as the equitable doctrine of restitution. However, if the minor has sold the goods or converted them, they cannot be compelled to repay the value of the goods, as that would essentially enforce a void contract. Additionally, the doctrine of restitution does not apply if the minor has received cash instead of goods.Leslie (R) Ltd V Sheill:- A minor managed to deceive some money-lenders by falsely stating his age, persuading them to lend him£400 under the impression that he was an adult.
4. Minor seeking relief, compellable to restore
If a minor asks the court to cancel their contract, the court may agree but with the condition that the minor must return all benefits received under the contract or compensate the other party appropriately. The plaintiff was granted the relief of cancellation under Section 39 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877 [now Section 31 of the 1963Act]. The money lender requested that this relief be subject to the condition that the minor repay him the sum of Rs 10,500 advanced for the mortgage. Initially, he cited Section 64 of the Contract Act,which states that a person who rescinds a voidable contract must return any benefit received under the contract. However, the Privy Council ruled that this section only applies to voidable contracts and not to agreements with minors, which are inherently void. Relief was also not granted under Section 65 of the Act, which requires a party to return any benefit received under a void or discovered-to-be-void contract. The Privy Council clarified that these sections assume the existence of a valid contract between competent parties, which is not the case when dealing with agreements involving minors.
Khan Gul v Lakhan Singh:-
The defendant, while still a minor, fraudulently concealed his age and entered into a contract to sell a plot of land to the plaintiff. He received Rs 17,500 as consideration but later refused to fulfill his part of the agreement. The plaintiff sought either recovery of possession or a refund of the consideration. Since the contract was entirely void, specific enforcement was not possible. The key question was whether a minor who enters into a contract through false representation can refuse to fulfill the contract while keeping the benefits received. Section 41 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877,did not assist the plaintiff because it requires the minor to seek court assistance, which was not the case here. The principle of restitution, as explained by Lord Sumner in Leslie (R) Ltd v Sheill, would not apply unless it was extended in India to cover cases involving money. The Chief Justice found justification for this extension, stating that in India, where all contracts made by infants are void, there is a broader scope for applying the equitable doctrine of restitution compared to England, where such a general rule does not exist. The Chief Justice also noted that the doctrine of restitution is not limited to cases covered by Sections 39 and 41 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877 [now Sections 31 and 33 of the 1963Act], as it is based on the principle that a court of equity cannot allow an infant to benefit from their own fraud. Therefore, the Chief Justice ordered the refund of the consideration.
