Ajudhia Prasad v. Chandan Lal (AIR 1937 All 610)

1. Can the mortgage executed during minority be enforced against the defendants?
2. Does Section 68 (necessaries) allow recovery on the facts?
3. Do Sections 64–65 or estoppel create any repayment duty for a minor who misrepresented age?

• Section 11, ICA: A minor is not competent to contract; such agreements are void.
• Section 68, ICA (Necessaries): Supplier may be reimbursed from the minor’s property for real necessaries only.
• Sections 64–65, ICA: No personal restitution decree against a minor for a void agreement.
• Estoppel: Cannot override a statute that protects minors.
• TPA Section 43: Not attracted to transfers by a minor during minority.
• Mohori Bibee v. Dharmodas Ghose: Minor’s agreement is void; guiding precedent.

The court treated the mortgage as unenforceable because the executants were minors. It reaffirmed the rule from Mohori Bibee: a minor’s agreement is void, not merely voidable. Sections 64 and 65 do not operate to impose a money decree on a minor defendant. Section 68 did not assist the plaintiffs as the money was not for “necessaries.” Estoppel could not be used to defeat the minor’s protection. Finally, TPA Section 43 was held inapplicable where the transferor was a minor.

• Minor’s contracts are void ab initio; courts will not enforce repayment.
• Sections 64–65 cannot be used against a minor defendant to create liability.
• Section 68 allows reimbursement only for true necessaries.
• No estoppel against a protective statute; TPA s.43 does not cure minority transfers.

This case is a clean exam guide on minors’ contracts. It shows the limits of equity and estoppel, and it draws a clear line between “necessaries” and ordinary expenses.

• Contract with minor = void from the start.
• Restitution sections do not bind a minor defendant.
• Section 68 works only for real necessaries.
• Estoppel cannot undo statutory protection.

Mnemonic: “Void, not Repay; Necessaries only; no Estoppel” → V-R-N-E.

1. Void: Ask if the maker was a minor.
2. Repay? Check Sections 64–65 → no personal decree.
3. Necessaries: If yes under s.68, only then from property; otherwise no.

Issue: Can a mortgage executed by minors be enforced; do restitutive or equitable routes apply?

Rule: Section 11 → minor not competent; Mohori Bibee governs; Sections 64–65 not applicable against minor; Section 68 applies only for necessaries; no estoppel; TPA s.43 not applicable.

Application: Defendants were minors; marriage expenses are not necessaries; equity cannot override statute; no route to enforce repayment.

Conclusion: Mortgage unenforceable; no personal liability; protection of minors stands.

Void ab initio

Invalid from the very beginning.

Necessaries

Goods/services essential for life and status; not luxuries.

Estoppel

Rule stopping someone from denying earlier conduct; not used to hurt minors’ rights.