Question

This question consists of principles and facts. The principal may or may not be true in the real and legal sense, yet you have to conclusively assume them to be true for the purposes of this Section. In other words, in answering the question, you must not rely on any principle except the principle that is given hereinbelow for the question.  
Further, you must not assume any facts other than those stated in the question. The objective of this section is to test your interest in the study of law, research aptitude, and problem-solving ability. 
Therefore, to answer a question, the principle is to be applied to the given facts and to choose the most appropriate option.

Principle: According to law, a person is deemed to have attained the age of majority when he completes the age of 18 years, except in the case of a person where a guardian of a minor’s person or property has been appointed under the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 or where the superintendence of a minor’s property is assumed by a Court of Wards. Indian law expressly forbids a minor from entering into a contract. Hence, any contract entered into by a minor is void­ab­initio regardless of whether the other party was aware of his minority or not. Further, though a minor is not competent to contract, nothing in the Contract Act prevents him from making the other party bound to the minor.

Facts: Lal executed a promissory note in favour of Gurudutt, aged 16 years stating that he would pay Gurudutt a sum of Rs. 2 Lakhs when he attains the age of majority. On attaining the age of 18, Gurudutt demanded the amount from Lal, who refused to pay. Gurudutt wants to take legal action against Lal. Identify the most appropriate legal position from the following:

विकल्प

• Gurudutt should not have entered into a contract with Lal when he was a minor.

• Lal was not aware of the fact that Gurudutt was a minor.

• Lal argues that as per the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, Gurudutt can claim the money only after he attains the age of 21.

• A promissory note duly executed in favour of a minor is not void and can be sued upon by him because he thought incompetent to contract, may yet accept a benefit.

Answer 1

A promissory note duly executed in favour of a minor is not void and can be sued upon by him because he thought incompetent to contract, may yet accept a benefit.

Explanation:

A promissory note duly executed in favour of a minor is not void and can be sued upon by him because he thought incompetent to contract, may yet accept a benefit. A minor by law is incompetent to contract but can accept a benefit on reaching maturity.