MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF PLAINTIFF

SNBP LAW COLLEGE INTERNAL MOOT COURT 2023-24

SNBP LAW COLLEGE

Morwadi, Pimpri-411018
(Affiliated to Savitribhai Phule Pune University)

SUBMITTED BY:

Mahendra Samdole as Plaintiff

LLB 3rd Year

Memorial on behalf of the Plaintiff Page 1

 BEFORE

THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF

MUMBAI

APPELLATE JURISDICTION
APPEAL NO……………………. /2007

UNDER SECTION 96 OF CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908

IN THE MATTER OF

M/S Farewell Bank Limited………………..APPELLANT

V.
M/s PowerCraft Publications Limited & Others……………………..RESPONDENT

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF

Memorial on behalf of the Plaintiff Page 2

 TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS…………………………………………………………………3
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS…………………………………………………………….4
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES……………………………………………………………...5
• CASES REFERRED……………………………………………………………….5
• LEGAL DICTIONARIES,BOOKS AND ARTICLE REFERRED……………….5
• JOURNAL REFERRED…………………………………………………………...5
• DATABASE REFERRED…………………………………………………………5

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION…………………………………………………….6
The Parties……………………………………………………………………………..7
Background of the case………………………………………………………………...8
Dispute between the parties……………………………………………………………9

CHRONOLOGY OF EVENTS…………………………………………………………..9

ISSUE RAISED…………………………………………………………………………...9

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS………………………………………………………..10

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED……………………………………………………………11

• No, there is a no valid contract between M/s Senghal and Mr. Sidd Malhar……...12
• The judgment passed in Mohori Bibee v. Dharmodas Ghose needs no
reconsideration…………………………………………………………………......14
• The civil court of Sardam was correct in rejecting the plea of restitution as the
respondent is not liable to return the
debt…………………………………………………………………………………17
PRAYER…………………………………………………………………………………..18

Memorial on behalf of the Plaintiff Page 3

 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

M/s. Messrs
& And
i.e. That is
Ms. Miss
etc Et cetera
EMIs Easy Monthly Instalments
doesn’t Does Not
Mr. Mister
v. Versus
Ors. Others
Dr. Doctor
A.I.R All India Report
Cal. California
UK United Kingdom
isn't Is not
Ind India
Pc Privy Council
C.J Chief Justice
L.J. Law Journal
I.L.R. Indian Law Report
Ltd Limited
£ Pound
Pat Patna
Rs Rupees
Anr. Another
e.g, For Example
KB King Bench
Lah Lahore

Memorial on behalf of the Plaintiff Page 4

 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

Sr. Full Citation Page

No
no.
01 Bhim Mandal Magaram Corain AIR 1961 Pat. 13
02 Suraj Narain Dubey v. Sukhu Aheer and Anr Allahabad High Court 14
AIR
1928 All 440
03 Indran Ramaswami Pandia Thalavar v. Anthappa Chettiar and others 14
(1906) 16 MLJ 422
04 Satya Pal Anand v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors. [Civil Appeal 14
No.6673 of 2014]
05 Nash v Inman [1908] 2 KB 1 14
06 Mohori Bibee v. Dharmodas Ghose [1903] UKPC 12 16
07 Mathai Mathai v Joseph Mary 25042014 SCs140442 COM809714 16
08 Bindeshari Bux Singh v. Chandika, A.I.R 1927 All 242 (D), 18
09 Ram Ashish Chaudhary v. State of Uttar Pradesh 2003 (1) AWC 613 18
10 Ajudhia Prasad And Anr. v. Chandan Lal And Anr AIR 1937 All 610 19
11 Dyaviah And Anr. v. Shivamma And Anr 19

• LEGAL DICTIONARIES,BOOKS AND ARTICLE REFERRED

• Contract I & Specific Relief Act BY Shri Ram Singh Central Law Publications
• Avtar Singh's Law of Contract & Specific Relief , Edition 13th, 2022 3.Pollock & Mulla the
Specific Relief Act 1963
4. Principles of the English Law of Contract and of Agency in Its Relation to Contract

• JOURNAL REFERRED

• ALL INDIA REPORT

• INDIAN LAW REPORT 3.SUPREME COURT CASES

• DATABASE

REFERRED

1.www.lexisnexis.com

2.www.manupatra.com

3.www.casemine.com

Memorial on behalf of the Plaintiff Page 5

 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
Mr. Sidd Malhar, the Respondent in present case, has the honour to submit this
memorandum to the High court of Sardam (Indiana), in pursuance of the Contract
between the Appellant and the Respondent under section 96 of Civil Procedure
Code,1908.

Memorial on behalf of the Plaintiff Page 6

 STATEMENT OF FACTS
The parties- Sidd Malhar, i.e. the Appellant, is a sixteen-year prodigy, citizen of Indiana
and 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. M/s. Senghal & Senghal,i.e. the Respondent, is a leading building
constructor and infrastructure provider. Ms. Asha Senghal is the Manager of M/s.
Senghal & Senghal.
Background of case-The Respondent is an Astounding singer and wanted to develop his
career .So, he wanted a multi-purpose, ultra-modern architectural marvel where he could
have his recording studio, theatre - for live musical performances and a rooftop pool for
hosting parties.
M/s. Senghal & Senghal the Respondent, was a leading building constructor and they
offered the Appellant to complete the work at 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.
The Contract-The Contract was to construct a multi-purpose building including all
amenities therein. According to the contract, the ground floor was for parking, the first
floor was for the music theater, the second floor was for the recording studio and the last
floor for the rooftop pool. Both parties agreed on the payment of Rs.10, 00,000/ in
installments in order of the completion of different phases of the assigned work.
Dispute between the parties- Respondent tries to dispose of his property without paying
a single dime to the Appellant and declare the contract void. Appellant filed the suit
before the Civil Court of Sardam in the State of Indiana on the ground that they had
constructed the building as per the contract and had taken the measure step to recover the
loan from the Respondent of Rs 7,00,000 but now he refused to pay the said amount and
alleged a fraud against him. They also prayed for injunction restraining Sidd from selling
the property until the suit was disposed as it was already mentioned that the Civil Court
of Sardam heard the matter and held that a minor's contract is void ab-initio through the
Respondent set free from all the liabilities towards Appellant by upholding the judgment
passed in Mohri Bibee v. Dharmodas Ghose and the plea for restitution by the appellant
was rejected and injunction ws not granted. Then Appellant preferred an appeal before
the High Court of Sardam in the State of Indiana . The High Court granted injunction and
decided to hear the case on merits.

Memorial on behalf of the Plaintiff Page 7

 CHRONOLOGY OF EVENTS

1 Respondent wanted a multi-purpose, ultra-modern architectural marvel where he

could have his recording studio, theatre - for live musical performances and a
rooftop pool for hosting parties.
2 Appellant offered to do entire work for Rs.10,00,000/-
3 Respondent communicated its acceptance and agreed on the payment of the amount in
instalment.
4 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 rooftop pool.
5 The Appellant runs out of money for the construction of Second floor and Last floor
and informs Respondent that they are unable to work further unless further capital
was not invested.
6 The Respondent requested Appellant for continuance of work on their own fund.
7 Construction was completed and the party was a success.
8 For World tour and Fusion album Respondent enters in a Contract with Veenaghaana
Producers and promises Appellant for the Payment of Remaining Rs. 7,00,000/-
9 Respondent’s Fusion Album was a disastrous flop and trolled by social media users
and he found himself unable to pay Rs.7, 00,000/- to Appellant.
10 The Appellant compelled Respondent to render a performance in Birthday to secure
contracts regarding buildings, Construction etc and in return agreed to release the
Respondent on paying of Debt.
11 To get his lost Reputation Respondent also agreed to perform in the party but due
severe sore throat he was unable to perform in Appellant’s party on the advice of his
doctor.
12 On 18th birthday of the Respondent both parties agreed on that the Respondent have
to pay (EMIs) of Rs. 20,000/- per month till the repayment of the amount of Rs.7,
00,000/-.

13 Respondent point out that the material used in construction is substandard and not
satisfactory and the Appellant even did not work as he specified.
14 Respondent Claims that it cost only Rs.3, 00,000/- to the Appellant of The
construction and he had paid money already.
15 The Respondent decided to dispose of the party without paying any amount to the

Memorial on behalf of the Plaintiff Page 8

 Appellant.
16 Appellant tries to recover the remaining Rs. 7,00,000/- but as a last resort, they send a
legal notice for the payment of the Debt Within 15 Days, to which Respondent
doesn’t seem to reply.
17 Appellant filed a suit against Respondent in Civil Court of Sardam, in the State of
Indiana for the recovery of the loan and prayed for an injunction restraining
respondent from selling the property until the suit was disposed off.
18 The Civil Court of Sardam held that a minor’s contract is void ab-initio and thus set
Respondent free from all his liabilities towards the Appellant.
Appellant filed an Appeal in the High Court of Sardam.
19

ISSUES RAISED

• Whether there is a valid contract between M/s. Senghal and Senghal and Mr. Sidd Malhar?

• Whether the judgment passed in Mohori Bibee v. Dharmodas Ghose needs Reconsideration?

• Whether the Civil Court of Sardam was correct in rejecting the plea of restitution?

Memorial on behalf of the Plaintiff Page 9

 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
• Whether there is a valid contract between M/s. Senghal and Senghal and Mr.
Sidd Malhar?

No, there was no valid contract between M/s Senghal and Senghal and Mr. Sidd Malhar
as the respondent was minor at the time of contract so basically the contract was void ab
initio (void from beginning) a minor cannot enter into a contract according to section 11
of Indian Contract Act 1872 they are not competent for the contract and if the parties are
not competent for the contract then those agreements are not contract according to section
10 of Indian Contract Act 1872. So the contract between the parties is void.

• Whether the judgment passed in Mohori Bibee v. Dharmodas Ghose needs

Reconsideration?
The judgment passed in Mohori Bibee v. Dharmodas Ghose needs no reconsideration as
the judgment passed in this case is for protection for minor, The main reason for this
policies to protect minors from their own rash decision and preventing minor’s from other
parties from taking advantage on minor’s mental capacity.

• Whether the Civil Court of Sardam was correct in rejecting the plea of restitution?
Yes, the Civil Court of Sardam was correct in rejecting the plea of restitution as the
respondent is a minor so the contract was void ab initio (void from beginning) contract
was never happened so the minor is not liable for any kind of restitution and also when
the minor became the major he recognise the work done by the appellant is not
satisfactory he realize that the amount of expense made in doing that work is already paid
by him so he is not liable for any restitution.

Memorial on behalf of the Plaintiff Page 10

 ARGUMENT ADVANCE
Whether there is a valid contract between M/s. Senghal and Senghal and Mr. Sidd
Malhar?
• The counsel for the respondent respectfully submits to the honorable high court that the
contract between M/s Senghal and Senghal is void not valid the contract was void ab
initio (void from beginning) as there is the misrepresentation of age by the respondent. He
shows himself as major and signed the contract elsewhere at that time he was of 16 years
as it is stated that Agreements entered into with Minors are void ab-initio’. A contract
formed with minor is considered void. Any contract with a minor is void from the start;
anyone under the age of 18 is not capable of entering into a contract, so any agreement
that has been formed by a minor is void ab-initio (from the beginning). All agreements
are not contracts, according to Section 10 of the Indian Contract Act. Only such contracts
are agreements by parties who are legally capable of entering into a contract. Also
Section 11 of the Indian Contract Act defines the term "competent," which includes three
elements-The person must be of legal age, which is 18 years old, the person should be of
sound mind and not disqualified from contracting by any law to which he is subject. And
the age of majority is given in The Indian majority act, 1875 which declares in section 3
that every person domiciled in India shall be deemed to have attained his majority when
he shall have completed the age of 18 years, and not before. The age of majority being 18
years, a person less than that age even by a day would be a minor for the purposes of
contracting. As in the case of Bhim Mandal Magaram Corain 1 held that a minor is not
competent to contract and an agreement with a minor has been held to be void. In respect
of contracts thus it has been presumed that a minor is not capable of making an informed
choice and taking a decision and thus the consent of a minor has no effect of binding him
to any contract.

• Further on respondents 18th birthday both the parties on the ground of humanity decided
to alter the contract. Which is void too as it is said that minor cannot alter the contract if
there is no new consideration it is given in the Section 64[7] of the Indian Contract Act,
1872 applies where the parties entering a contract are competent to do so, and therefore
does not apply in circumstances where no contract is created at all.
1. Bhim Mandal Magaram Corain AIR 1961 Pat.

Memorial on behalf of the Plaintiff Page 11

 • It is also given that the ratification of a minor's contract does not exist. If a person is a
minor at the time of contracting, the contract is invalid and void. After becoming a major,
the minor is no longer able to remedy the contract (the contract, if corrected, will no
longer be valid). Furthermore, if the parties to the contract express interest, they may
engage in a new contract with the restriction that the consideration in the new contract be
new, as the prior consideration cannot be utilized again. And in this case the alteration
was made on past services that both agreed on that the Sidd would pay the debt through
EMI of Rs 20,000/- per month till the repayment of the amount of Rs 7,00,000/- so there
was no new consideration was made which leads to contract be void. As in the case of
Suraj Narain Dubey v. Sukhu Aheer and Anr Allahabad High Court2 held the old
consideration by the minor is not valid consideration for a fresh contract The judgment
was The three-Judge Bench of Allahabad High Court upheld the decision of Small Causes
Court they stated the previous contract fails Section 11 of the Indian Contract Act
“Competency of Contract'' as the respondent was a minor so the Contract was void. The
previous contract being void, the consideration not a good consideration for the contract
and the contract was held void. The same view was taken by the Madras High Court in
Indran Ramaswami Pandia Thalavar v. Anthappa Chettiar and others3 (Vol. XVI MLJ
422). It is held that a promissory note executed by a person on attaining majority in
settlement of an earlier one executed by him while a minor, in consideration of his having
received from the oblige a certain sum of money when he was a minor, is bad for want of
consideration.
Also it is given in the case of Satya Pal Anand v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors. 4, it
was stated that any novation, rescission and alteration of contract, can be made only
through bilaterally and with the amicable consent of both the parties. But in this present
case the consent for contract is given by a minor so there is no point of alteration because
as there is no contract so there is a no point of alteration so the alteration of the contract is
not possible. Also there is no point of the application of the principle of necessaries as the
house was made was luxury not for basic need as in the case of Nash v Inman 5 Here, an
Oxford student who was still a minor (under 21 years of age - Age of Majority at the time)
purchased 11 fancy waistcoats from a Seville Row tailor. Despite the fact that these
waistcoats were
2 Suraj Narain Dubey v. Sukhu Aheer and Anr Allahabad High Court AIR 1928 All 440
3 Indran Ramaswami Pandia Thalavar v. Anthappa Chettiar and others (1906) 16 MLJ 422
4 Satya Pal Anand v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors. [Civil Appeal No.6673 of 2014],
5 Nash v Inman [1908] 2 KB 1

Memorial on behalf of the Plaintiff Page 12

 generally deemed to be necessaries, the court found that they were not necessary under
the circumstances. The father of the infant was clearly able to demonstrate that his son
was adequately supplied with clothes. Hence after considering all the facts the contract
between appellant and respondent is void.

Memorial on behalf of the Plaintiff Page 13

 Whether the judgment passed in Mohori Bibee v. Dharmodas Ghose needs
Reconsideration?
The counsel humbly submits to the honourable court that the case of Mohori Bibee v.
Dharmodas Ghose6 needs no reconsideration because according to the Indian contract act
any contract with minor is void ab initio and also Indian courts do not prescribes the
minor’s contract. The main reason for this policies to protect minors from their own rash
decision and preventing minor’s from other parties from taking advantage of minor’s
mental capacity .

The case of The decision is good precedent in Indian contract law, and was re-affirmed
by the Supreme Court in its 2014 decision in Mathai Mathai v Joseph Mary7.
The case of Mohori Bibee v/s Dharmodas Ghose related to minor’s contract where a
minor who enters in a contract with the major person.

Plantiff (Dharmodas Ghose) who was a minor at the time of contract received a loan from
Respondent (Brahmo Dutt) by saying that he was an adult and entered into a contract for
a mortgage deed in his favour for loan and the management of his business was in the
control of the attorney of Brahmo dutta (Kedarnath). Kedarnath receives the information
of Dharmodas’s minority from the letter sent by the mother of brahmodas.But still he
executed a mortgage deed from Dharamdos Ghose.

On the 10th day of September 1895 a legal action brought by Dharmodas and his mother
by saying that the mortgage executed by Minor or infant was void and disproportionate or
improper.
Justice Jenkins, who was the judge of the trial court, cancelled the mortgage deed.
When Brahmo Dutta was not satisfied with the verdict of Trial Court he filed an appeal in
the Calcutta High court But when the petition or claim was in process, Brahmo Dutta had
died and further appeal or petition was litigated by his executor’s.

The appeal against the order was also rejected by the High Court

6 Mohori Bibee v. Dharmodas Ghose [1903] UKPC 12

7 Mathai Mathai v Joseph Mary 25042014 SCs140442 COM809714

Memorial on behalf of the Plaintiff Page 14

 The plaintiff argued or confronted that in such case no relaxation or any sought of
aid should be provided to them because according to him, defendant had
dishonestly misinterpreted the fact about his age and because if mortgage is
cancelled at the request by defendant i.e. Dharmodas Ghose.

The appeal against the order was also quashed by the Privy Council and held that
there cannot be any sought of contract between a minor and a major person.

Verdict:

It is given that 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.
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.
Also in the case of Bindeshari Bux Singh v. Chandika 8, it was held that all
transactions entered into by a minor are void, and therefore a minor, on attaining
majority, cannot take upon himself a liability which from the point of view of law,
never really existed, e.g, he cannot execute a fresh bond ratifying an old bond
executed during his minority.
In the case of Ram Ashish Chaudhary v. State of Uttar Pradesh 9, A person was
appointed as a teacher from agreement But it was found that he was a minor at the

8. Bindeshari Bux Singh v. Chandika, A.I.R 1927 All 242 (D),

9. Ram Ashish Chaudhary v. State of Uttar Pradesh 2003 (1) AWC 613

Memorial on behalf of the Plaintiff Page 15

 time of his appointment as a teacher. The Court held that the agreement was void ab
initio due to the minority of the person on the basis of the judgment passed in Mohori
Bibee v/s Dharmodas Ghose. Hence after considering all the facts we can say that there
is no need of reconsideration of the Mohori Bibee v. Dharmodas Ghose.

Memorial on behalf of the Plaintiff Page 16

 Whether the Civil Court of Sardam was correct in rejecting the plea of restitution?

The counsel for the respondent respectfully submits that the civil court of Sardam was
correct in rejecting the plea of restitution as this is a minors contract which is void ab
initio (void from beginning ) thus this set respondent free from all his liabilities the civil
court has given its decision on the basis of Mohori Bibee v. Dharmodas Ghose where it is
said that minor contract is void and he is not liable for any debt.

According to Ajudhia Prasad And Anr. v. Chandan Lal And Anr.10 on 11 May, 1937 the
court said that The clear rule laid down is that neither Section 64 nor Section 65 deals
with a case where a party is incompetent to enter into a contract at all, and that in such a
case, therefore, there would be no question of ordering him to restore the advantage
which he has received or to make compensation for what he has received. So according to
this the respondent is not liable to pay any debt

According to Dyaviah And Anr. v. Shivamma And Anr.11 on 5 February 1959 It needs to
be considered whether grant of restitution, under such circumstances, in the case of a void
contract amounts to enforcing that contract. That is not so. The courts will hold that the
transaction is void and set aside the transaction and direct that the property be restored.
But while directing that restoration the Court has to adjust the equities between the
parties. It cannot allow the minor to retain the benefit he has secured wider the very
contract which ho seeks to set aside. To allow him to do so would be to give him a double
advantage, to which he is not entitled.

And also there is no need of paying any debt as the respondent has already paid
3,00,000/- for the construction work which is already enough because the plaintiff fails to
provide satisfactory work to the Respondent and also use cheap quality products in
construction which was agreed by the Respondent at the time of minority so the consent
of respondent can be considered as no free consent. Hence after considering all the facts
we can say that the plea of restitution was correctly rejected.

10. Ajudhia Prasad And Anr. v. Chandan Lal And Anr AIR 1937 All 610
11. Dyaviah And Anr. v. Shivamma And Anr

Memorial on behalf of the Plaintiff Page 17

 PRAYER
The respondent respectfully requests this court on the basis of prior and foregoing written
submission to FIND and DECLARE that:
• To hold the contract between M/s Senghal and Senghal and Mr. Sidd Malhar as void.
• Judgment passed in Mohori Bibee v/s Dharmodas Ghose does not need
reconsideration.
• Pass any other order, which the court may deem fit in light of justice, equity and
good conscience.

Respectfully submitted by the counsel for respondent.

Memorial on behalf of the Plaintiff Page 18

 RESEARCHERS COMMENTS
1. Formation of Contract: The contract between Sidd Malhar and M/s. Senghal &
Senghal; Senghal raises questions about its validity due to Sidd’s status as a minor.
Research on the legal requirements for a valid contract and the implications of a minor
entering into a contract is essential.

2. Restitution and Minor’s Contract: The rejection of the plea of restitution by the Civil
Court of Sardam is a critical point. Explore legal precedents regarding the restitution of
benefits obtained under a void contract involving a minor.

3. Injunction and Property Sale: The High Court’s decision to grant an injunction
against Sidd selling the property raises issues of equity and the court’s authority.
Research the circumstances under which an injunction can be granted and its
implications on property rights.

4. Validity of the Mohori Bibee v. Dharmodas Ghose Judgment: Sidd’s reliance on

the Mohori Bibee v. Dharmodas Ghose judgment requires an examination of the
precedent and whether it applies to the current case. Research cases discussing the
validity and relevance of this judgment.

5. Principles of Supply of ‘Necessaries’, Frustration, Estoppel, Ratification, and

Novation: Consider how these principles might be applied in the case. Research
precedents or statutes that establish the criteria for these legal concepts and assess their
relevance.

6. Foreign Judgments and Persuasive Value: Investigate the legal standing of foreign
judgments, especially from Common Law jurisdictions, within the context of Indiana
law. Provide insights into the persuasive value of such judgments in the case at hand.

⮚ Based on the information provided, the judge in the Civil Court of Sardam initially held
that Sidd Malhar’s contract with M/s. Senghal & Senghal was void ab initio due to
his status as a minor, citing the precedent set in Mohori Bibee v. Dharmodas Ghose.
Consequently, the court set Sidd free from all liabilities towards M/s. Senghal &
Senghal, rejected the plea of restitution, and did not grant an injunction.

⮚ However, M/s. Senghal & Senghal filed an appeal before the High Court of
Sardam. The High Court granted an injunction and decided to hear the case on its
merits. The matter is under consideration as argued by Plaintiff and Defendant. It will
be interesting to know whether court accords to principal of ratification case of initial
agreement with minor party.

Memorial on behalf of the Plaintiff Page 19