Effect of Minor's Agreement — MCQs

All questions with answers and explanations

Read the full set here, or use the practice card above to test yourself one question at a time.

1. In Mohori Bibee v. Dharmodas Ghose (1903), the Privy Council held that a minor's agreement is:

   • Voidable at the minor's option
   • Void ab initio (correct answer)
   • Valid but unenforceable against the minor's property
   • Valid if ratified within one year of majority

   Explanation. The Privy Council held that Sections 10 and 11, read together, make a minor incompetent to contract, so a minor's agreement is void ab initio — void from the very start, not voidable.

2. In Mohori Bibee v. Dharmodas Ghose, the lender's attorney knew the borrower was under age. A false statement of age made by the borrower to such a lender:

   • Stops the minor from pleading minority
   • Does not stop the minor from pleading minority (correct answer)
   • Makes the minor liable to repay the loan with interest
   • Makes the loan voidable at the lender's option

   Explanation. The Privy Council held that a false statement of age made to a person who knows the truth does not estop the minor from pleading infancy. It did not decide whether an estoppel could arise against a minor who deceives an innocent lender.

3. Under Section 68, necessaries supplied to a minor are recoverable:

   • From the minor personally, with interest
   • From the minor's property only (correct answer)
   • Only if the minor's parents co-sign
   • Cannot be recovered under any circumstances

   Explanation. Section 68 makes the minor's property, not the minor personally, liable to reimburse a supplier of genuine necessaries.

4. In Kashiba v. Sripat Narshiv (1894), the Bombay High Court held that an adult who gave a bond for a minor's debt was:

   • Not liable, because the minor owed nothing in law
   • Liable only as a surety, up to the minor's debt
   • Liable, as his promise was treated as that of a principal and not a mere surety (correct answer)
   • Liable for half the amount only

   Explanation. The Bombay High Court treated the father's promise as that of a principal, not a mere surety, and held him liable. High Courts differ: in Edavan Kavingal Kelappan Nambiar v. Moolakal Kunhi Raman (1956) the Madras High Court held a surety not liable for a minor's void debt.

5. Which English case is commonly cited for the principle that only genuine necessaries, not luxuries, are recoverable under a provision like Section 68?

   • Raffles v. Wichelhaus
   • Nash v. Inman (correct answer)
   • Derry v. Peek
   • Carlill v. Carbolic Smoke Ball Co.

   Explanation. Nash v. Inman (1908) held that extra waistcoats supplied to a Cambridge undergraduate minor who already had adequate clothing were not necessaries, since necessaries are judged objectively against what the person already has.

6. Under Section 33(2)(b) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, a defendant who successfully resists a suit because the agreement is void under Section 11 may be required to:

   • Pay damages for breach
   • Restore the benefit received, to the extent the defendant or their estate has benefited (correct answer)
   • Perform the agreement
   • Pay double the benefit received

   Explanation. Section 33(2)(b) lets the court require restoration of the benefit received, to the extent the defendant or their estate has benefited. It is discretionary.

7. Under Section 30 of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932, a minor:

   • Can be a full partner
   • Cannot be a partner but may be admitted to the benefits of the partnership with the consent of all partners (correct answer)
   • Is personally liable for the firm's debts
   • Cannot receive any share of profits

   Explanation. A minor cannot become a partner, but with all partners' consent may be admitted to the benefits of the partnership, without personal liability for the firm's debts.