Defendant: Khan Gul & another later as Appellant
Plaintiff: Lakha Singh later as Respondent
Decided on: April 2, 1928
Court: Lahore High Court
Bench: C.J. Shadi Lal, J. Broadway, J. Harrison, J. Tek Chand, J. Dalip Singh
Area- Minor as an exception to enter a contract
Facts- The minor (defendant), who was under the legal age, deceitfully kept his age a secret and agreed to sell a piece of land to the plaintiff. The defendant received Rs. 17500/- as payment but later reneged on the agreement. As a result, the plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the defendant to recover the money.
Issue: The first issue was whether a person who is underage, but lies about their age and persuades someone else to enter into a contractual agreement, can be prevented from using their age as a legal defense?
The second issue was whether a minor who falsely presents themselves as an adult (regardless of whether they are the plaintiff or defendant) can avoid fulfilling their obligations under a contract while still retaining any benefits received from said contract?
Judgment: The court ruled that the defendant was responsible for returning the money to the plaintiff. The court further said that restoring property and refunding money are essentially the same, except for the fact that property can be identified while cash cannot be traced. In cases where the property cannot be traced and the only way to compensate the other party is through a monetary decree against a minor, who is found to have committed fraud, the other party deserves to be compensated in equity. The English Doctrine of Restitution's narrow perspective is not relevant in India.
Comments