Contractual incapacity bars restitution where the promissory note was an absolute nullity under the Wards regime.

Money advanced under a promissory note executed when the debtor was legally incompetent to contract was not recoverable under Section 65 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. Because the debtor's estate was under the Court of Wards and the relevant Wards Act rendered him incapable of incurring pecuniary contractual liability, the transaction was treated as an absolute nullity rather than a voidable or merely void agreement. Section 65, which applies only where a contract or agreement capable of being avoided exists, could not be invoked on these facts. Section 68 was also treated as consistent with the view that no quasi-contractual recovery lay, and the suit failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether money advanced under a promissory note executed when the debtor was legally incompetent to contract could be recovered under Section 65 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872.

Analysis: The liability arose when the defendant's estate was under the superintendence of the Court of Wards, and Section 31 of the Central Provinces Court of Wards Act, 1899 rendered him incompetent to enter into a contract involving pecuniary liability. The governing principle drawn from Section 11 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 and the authorities relied on is that a transaction entered into by a person disqualified from contracting is not merely voidable or void, but an absolute nullity. On that footing, Section 65 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, which presupposes an agreement or contract capable of being treated as void, has no application where no enforceable contract could ever come into existence. Section 68 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 was also treated as supporting the view that the statutory scheme does not permit recovery on a quasi-contractual basis in such a case.

Conclusion: Recovery under Section 65 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 was not available, and the suit failed.

---