TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the respondent, being an infant at the time of execution of the mortgage, was estopped from asserting minority on the basis of the declaration as to age; (ii) whether the mortgage created a voidable contract so as to attract restitution or repayment of the advance under the Contract Act and equitable principles.
Issue (i): Whether the respondent, being an infant at the time of execution of the mortgage, was estopped from asserting minority on the basis of the declaration as to age.
Analysis: The statement as to age was made to the attorney who already knew the respondent was a minor and was not misled by it. Estoppel under the Evidence Act requires a representation that causes another to believe and act upon it. Where the true facts are known to the other side, there is no estoppel. A false statement made to a person who knows it to be false does not deprive an infant of the protection of infancy.
Conclusion: The respondent was not estopped from pleading minority.
Issue (ii): Whether the mortgage created a voidable contract so as to attract restitution or repayment of the advance under the Contract Act and equitable principles.
Analysis: The Contract Act makes competency to contract essential, and a person who is below the age of majority is not competent to contract. The statutory scheme distinguishes agreements, void agreements, contracts, and voidable contracts, and the category of voidable contract presupposes a contract between competent parties. An infant's agreement therefore does not fall within the class of voidable contracts. The provisions relied on for restoration or compensation likewise proceed on the footing of an existing contract between competent parties. The discretionary power under the Specific Relief Act to require compensation on cancellation did not compel repayment on the facts, especially where the lender acted with knowledge of minority.
Conclusion: The mortgage was not enforceable against the respondent as a voidable contract, and no repayment of the advance was required as a condition of relief.
Final Conclusion: The legal effect of the decision is that a minor's agreement is not a binding contract within the Contract Act, estoppel does not arise where the alleged misrepresentation is made to one who knows the truth, and equitable relief need not be conditioned on restitution in such circumstances.
Ratio Decidendi: A person who is not competent to contract by reason of minority cannot make a contract within the meaning of the Contract Act, and a false representation of age made to one who knows it to be false creates no estoppel and does not convert the transaction into a voidable contract.
TaxTMI 
