Necessaries supplied to a person who is incapable of entering into a contract
Section 68 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872
In one minute
A minor or a person of unsound mind cannot make a binding contract. Yet he must eat, dress and stay healthy. Section 68 lets a person who supplies him with necessaries be paid back from his property.
The supplier cannot sue the incapable person on a promise, because there is none. He claims under the law, and only against the property. In exams, the two tests for necessaries and the property-only rule earn the marks. In real life, it protects the grocer, the doctor and the school that serve a minor.
Exam focus
- Frequency: Rarely asked
- Usually asked as: Long answer (10 to 15 marks)
Legal provision
- Section 68: if a person incapable of entering into a contract, or anyone whom he is legally bound to support, is supplied by another person with necessaries suited to his condition in life, the supplier is entitled to be reimbursed from the property of the incapable person.
- Illustration (a): A supplies B, a lunatic, with necessaries suitable to his condition in life. A is entitled to be reimbursed from B's property.
- Illustration (b): A supplies the wife and children of B, a lunatic, with necessaries suitable to their condition in life. A is entitled to be reimbursed from B's property.
- Section 11: a person is competent to contract if he is of the age of majority, of sound mind, and not disqualified from contracting by any law to which he is subject.
Meaning and definition
Section 68 is one of the five situations in which the law imposes a duty without agreement (a quasi contract). It applies to a person who is "incapable of entering into a contract". That means a person who fails the test of section 11: a minor, a person of unsound mind, or a person disqualified by law.
The Act does not define necessaries. It gives the test in the section itself: they must be "suited to his condition in life". The courts add a second test, which is the person's actual need at the time of supply.
The reason for the rule is fairness to both sides. The law shields a minor from bad bargains by making his agreements void. It does not want him to starve for that reason. So it lets the supplier recover, but only from the minor's own property. The decision tree shows the questions a court asks.
- 1. Is the person supplied incapable of entering into a contract, or someone whom such a person must support? section 68No: section 68 does not apply. Ordinary contract law decides.
- 2. Are the goods or services necessaries, suited to his condition in life? section 68No: there is no claim.
- 3. Did he actually need them when they were supplied, and was he not already enough supplied with them?No: there is no claim.
- 4. Does the incapable person own property?No: there is nothing from which to be reimbursed.
- All answers "Yes": the supplier is reimbursed from the incapable person's property. The person himself is not liable.
Detailed explanation
Step 1: who is incapable
A minor is incapable because his agreement is void. The Privy Council held this in Mohori Bibee v. Dharmodas Ghose (1903). Under section 12, a person is of sound mind only if, when he contracts, he can understand the contract and form a rational judgment about its effect on his interests. A person disqualified by a law that applies to him is also incapable.
Step 2: what are necessaries
Necessaries are things that a person of his rank and means reasonably needs. Food, clothing, shelter, medicine and schooling are the usual examples. Luxuries are not necessaries.
The supplier must prove two things. The goods must suit the person's condition in life, which means his social position and means. They must also match his actual requirements at the time of sale and delivery. The English case Nash v. Inman (1908) states this rule, and it is applied in India.
Example. Rohan is a minor student whose family earns a modest income. A shop supplies him with school uniforms and books for Rs 6,000. These are necessaries. The same shop also sells him a Rs 90,000 smartwatch on credit. That is not a necessary, because it is far beyond his condition in life and his needs.
Step 3: the dependants
Section 68 also covers "any one whom he is legally bound to support". The Act's illustration (b) shows this. If a person of unsound mind has a wife and children, a supplier who feeds them is reimbursed from his property.
Step 4: the supplier is repaid from property only
The section says the supplier is reimbursed "from the property of such incapable person". The person himself is not liable. If he owns nothing, the supplier gets nothing. The Supreme Court in State of West Bengal v. B.K. Mondal & Sons noted that a minor is outside section 70 because "his case has been specifically provided for by s. 68".
Example. Imran supplies rice and medicines worth Rs 36,000 to Hari, a person of unsound mind who owns a house. Imran is reimbursed out of the house or its income. He cannot claim the price from Hari personally.
Step 5: the claim is not on a promise
A minor's promise is void, so a note signed by a minor does not bind him. Section 26 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 says that a minor may draw, indorse, deliver and negotiate such an instrument so as to bind all parties except himself. The supplier therefore cannot sue the minor on the note.
The supplier sues for the price of the necessaries under section 68. The note may serve as proof of what was supplied, but it adds no liability.
Step 6: where section 68 does not apply
Section 68 helps only when the person supplied is incapable of contracting or is his dependant. In Kanhayalal Bisandayal Bhiwapurkar v. Indarchandji Hamirmalji Sisodia (Nagpur High Court, 1947), an eye specialist treated a woman under an agreement with her and her son-in-law and sued her husband. The Court held that section 68 did not apply, because the husband was not incompetent to contract.
Section 68 at a glance
| Element | What the law requires | Example |
|---|---|---|
| Receiver | A person incapable of contracting, or a person he must support | A minor, or the wife and children of a person of unsound mind |
| Thing supplied | Necessaries suited to his condition in life | Food, medicine, school books |
| Need | An actual requirement at the time of supply (Nash v. Inman) | A minor with enough clothes does not need more |
| Who pays | The property of the incapable person only | A house or savings owned by the minor |
| Nature of claim | Reimbursement under the law, not on a promise | The price of rice supplied, not a promissory note |
Don't confuse: a minor's agreement and a claim for necessaries
A minor's agreement is void, yet a supplier of necessaries can still be paid. The two rules work on different footings.
| Point | Minor's agreement | Claim for necessaries (section 68) |
|---|---|---|
| Source | A promise made by the minor | The law, to prevent unjust enrichment |
| Effect | Void, and no loan or price can be recovered on it | The supplier is reimbursed |
| Minor personally liable | No | No, only his property |
| Authority | Mohori Bibee v. Dharmodas Ghose | Section 68 |
Inside the idea. A grocer supplies a minor with food for three months on credit. The minor owns agricultural land. The grocer recovers the price from the minor's property under section 68.
Just outside it. A moneylender lends a minor Rs 20,000 for a motorbike and takes a mortgage. The loan is not for necessaries, and the minor's mortgage is void. The lender recovers nothing (Mohori Bibee).
Common mistakes
- Saying the minor is personally liable for necessaries. The claim lies against his property only.
- Suing on a promissory note signed by a minor. The note does not bind him.
- Treating every purchase by a minor as a necessary. The goods must suit his condition in life and his actual need.
- Applying section 68 to a competent adult. It covers only a person incapable of contracting and his dependants.
Apply it
Problem
Suresh, a grocer, supplies food and daily goods worth Rs 18,000 to Kiran, a minor aged 16 who lives with his grandmother in Vijayawada. Kiran owns a plot of land inherited from his father. Kiran signs a promissory note for Rs 18,000 in Suresh's favour. The note falls due and is not paid. Can Suresh claim Rs 18,000 under the note?
Issue. Can a supplier of necessaries enforce a promissory note made by a minor, or is his remedy elsewhere?
Rule. A minor's promise is void (Mohori Bibee). A minor can sign a negotiable instrument but is not bound by it (section 26 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881). A person who supplies necessaries suited to the condition in life of a person incapable of contracting is reimbursed from that person's property (section 68).
Application. Suresh cannot recover under the note, because the note binds every party except Kiran. The food and daily goods are necessaries, and Suresh can prove they suited Kiran's condition in life and his actual needs. Kiran owns land, so there is property to reach.
Conclusion. Suresh cannot claim from Kiran on the note. He can claim the price of the necessaries under section 68, and the amount is recoverable out of Kiran's land. Kiran is not personally liable.
Leading case laws
- Mohori Bibee v. Dharmodas Ghose (1903)
Facts. Dharmodas Ghose, a minor, mortgaged his houses to secure Rs 20,000 to Brahmo Dutt. The lender's attorney knew he was a minor. The Privy Council decided the appeal on 4 March 1903.
Principle. A minor is not competent to contract, and his agreement is void. Sections 64 and 65 do not apply, because they assume a contract between competent parties.
Why it matters. It is the reason a supplier of necessaries has no contract claim and must use section 68.
- State of West Bengal v. B.K. Mondal & Sons (1962)
Facts. The State argued that it was like a minor and so could not be made to pay under section 70 where its contract was invalid. AIR 1962 SC 779.
Principle. The Court said a minor is outside section 70 because his case is provided for by section 68, and he cannot voluntarily accept a benefit. The State was not in that position.
Why it matters. It confirms that section 68 is the special rule for incapable persons.
- Nash v. Inman (1908)
Facts. A Savile Row tailor sued Inman, a Cambridge undergraduate who was a minor, for clothes that included eleven fancy waistcoats. The trial judge found that Inman already had enough clothes. [1908] 2 KB 1.
Principle. The supplier must prove that the goods suited the minor's condition in life and that he was not already sufficiently supplied.
Why it matters. It supplies the second test for necessaries.
- Kanhayalal Bisandayal Bhiwapurkar v. Indarchandji Hamirmalji Sisodia (1947)
Facts. An eye specialist sued a husband for Rs 188 for removing his wife's cataract under an agreement with her and her son-in-law. AIR 1947 Nag 84.
Principle. Section 68 covers a dependant of a person incompetent to contract. The husband was competent, so it did not apply.
Why it matters. It marks the limit of section 68.
How to write this answer in the exam
5-mark answer
- State section 68 in your own words.
- Name the persons covered: a minor, a person of unsound mind, their dependants.
- Give the two tests: condition in life and actual need.
- State that the supplier is repaid from property only, with the Act's illustration.
10-mark answer
- Introduce section 68 as a quasi-contractual claim.
- Explain why a minor's agreement is void (Mohori Bibee).
- Explain necessaries and Nash v. Inman.
- Explain dependants and the property-only rule.
- If a note is given, show that the minor is not bound (section 26 of the Negotiable Instruments Act) and the claim lies under section 68.
- Mention the limit: a competent person is outside it.
Key points to remember
- Section 68 repays a person who supplies necessaries to someone incapable of contracting.
- Necessaries must suit the person's condition in life and his actual need.
- The supplier is repaid from the incapable person's property only.
- The incapable person is not personally liable.
- Dependants of the incapable person are covered.
- A promissory note signed by a minor does not bind him, so the supplier claims under section 68.
Quick self-test
1. From whom is a supplier of necessaries reimbursed under section 68?
From the property of the incapable person. The person himself is not liable.
2. What two tests decide whether goods are necessaries?
They must suit his condition in life, and they must meet his actual requirements at the time of supply.
3. A grocer holds a minor's promissory note for necessaries. Can he sue on the note?
No. The note does not bind the minor. The grocer claims the price of the necessaries under section 68 from the minor's property.