Since a minor`s consent is null and void, he or she should normally be completely free of any effect (unless the contract is in favour of the minors). Since there is no contract, all the effects of a minor`s consent must be calculated independently of a contract. Ratification means accepting the measures that have been taken before. It can only be carried out for actions that were valid at the time of the conclusion of the contract. A minor may not ratify an agreement concluded during the period of the minority when he reaches the age of majority. Indeed, the agreement is void from the outset, that is, it cannot be ratified retrospectively. A new agreement must be reached on obtaining a majority. A void contract is a dead letter that cannot come to life and cannot constitute a valid consideration. Suraj Narain v. Sukhu Aheer[8] is a famous case in this regard.
In this case, a person borrowed money when he was a minor and then made a new promise, after reaching the age of majority, to repay the sum with interest. The question to be interpreted was whether the consideration received during the minority after reaching the age of majority could represent a good consideration. The Allahabad Supreme Court has ruled that the consideration a person receives during the minority cannot be a valid consideration after reaching the age of majority and cannot be valid for a new promise. The promisor was held responsible for such a promise, which constitutes a null and void agreement. Therefore, the agreement with a minor is void from the outset. A minor`s contract is invalid from the outset because he or she does not have the pension, knowledge and skills to enter into a legally binding contract. Except in cases of necessity, learning and guardianship agreement, the consent of the minor is a dead letter and has no influence on the parties. A minor may be admitted to the benefit of the contract, but cannot bear any responsibility. Since an agreement only becomes a contract if it is concluded with the free consent of the competent parties, which is legally enforceable,[19] an agreement with the « incompetent » minor becomes null and void or invalid.
Therefore, a minor is not allowed to enter into an agreement with another party, and any agreement entered into by him is invalid from the beginning. In the case of Suraj Narain v. Sukhu Aheer lent money to Suraj Narain Sukhu Aheer, a minor and the minor executed in return a promissory note against the borrowed money. When Sukhu Narain came of age, he and his mother issued a second promissory note in favor of lender Suraj Narain regarding the initial loan plus interest accumulated over the years. The case was taken to court, where it was concluded that the first agreement was void because it had been concluded by a minor and therefore had no responsibility under that agreement. However, the second agreement, which is formed on the basis of the first agreement, is also null and void, since an earlier null treaty can be ratified in the future and the treaties of minors are null and void and cannot be ratified after reaching the age of majority. An agreement, under section 2(e) of the Indian Contracts Act, 1872, is the agreement/acceptance of a proposal to perform or not perform an action, which usually involves some consideration. Figure – A, a minor sold a business to B, an adult. A received the consideration, but the deed of sale was not registered because A was a minor. B then brought an action for specific performance of the contract.
It was found that the nullity of the agreement cannot be executed and that a minor cannot be compelled to perform a particular service. In Mohori Bibee v. Dharmodas Ghose,[6] it was concluded that any contract to which a minor is a party is invalid from the outset and has no consequences. It was the landmark decision that established the nature of the minor`s agreement. It is clear from the above discussion that an agreement with a minor in India is void from the outset. A minor is usually liable for a tort, but he cannot be held responsible for what was in fact a breach of contract by formulating the action ex delicto. In Manmatha Kumar Saha v. Exchange Loan Co., it was stated that « you cannot convert a contract into a tort to prosecute minors. » On the basis of the above-mentioned facts, it can be concluded that a minor`s contract is void as soon as a contract is concluded with the minor, since a minor cannot build up a mental capacity to conclude a contract. In addition to the fact that the consent of minors is void, there are certain exceptions to the general rule. Consequently, it concludes that a minor`s agreement is considered null and void from the outset because the minor is not in a position to form a mental intention to conclude a contract and also because the minor is not in a position to draw conclusions from the contract. In summary, according to section 11 of the Indian Contracts Act, a minor cannot enter into a contract. After a productive debate, it was concluded that the minor`s agreement is void from the outset and is not questionable according to the minor`s will.
This has many implications, but they are independent of the agreement, because a null contract can have no consequences. A minor is not bound by the rule of confiscation[iii]. This means that a minor can always and at any time plead on behalf of his minority. Even if he falsely claimed to be a major and caused the other party, he may later deny the position. It cannot be continued contractually or without authorization. In addition, the aggrieved party cannot sue for a contract, because the minors` contract is void from the outset and the execution of null and void agreements is not possible. A controversy over articles 10 and 11 began in the early 1900s; The controversy concerned whether the minor`s consent was void from the outset or whether it was questionable at the minor`s discretion. A minor may enforce an agreement from which his position is beneficial. However, this is the condition precedent that the minor must have fulfilled his promise under the agreement. Anyone under the age of 18 is called a minor.
Any agreement with minors has no effect from the outset. it is null and void, so there is no legal obligation arising from the agreement and contract of a minor per se, so that no one who is not of legal age can conclude a contract. A minor`s consent occurs when a minor enters into an agreement (which, by law, is void from the outset). .