Team Code: - Rhythm Jaiswal
MOOT COURT MEMORIAL
before
THE DISTRICT COURT OF ROHINI, NEW DELHI
Mr. Mohit_______________________________________________________PETITIONER
Vs.
Mr. Naman____________________________________________________RESPONDENT
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT
2|Page
INDEX OF CONTENTS
INDEX OF AUHTORITIES............................................................................................... 3
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION.................................................................................. 4
STATEMENT OF FACTS.................................................................................................. 5
ISSUES RAISED...................................................................................................................6
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS ........................................................................................ 7
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED.............................................................................................. 8
•Provision under the Indian Contract Act 1872…………………………………….……….8
•Provision under the Indian Majority Act 1875…………………………………….....…….8
PRAYER................................................................................................................................ 10
3|Page
INDEX OF AUTHORITYIES
STATUES



The Indian Contracts Act, 1872
The Indian Majority Act 1875
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
CASES LAW

Mohoribibi vs Dharmodas Ghose
BOOKS REFFERED


Pollock & Mulla, The Indian Contract and Specific Relief Acts
Avtar Singh, Law of Contract and Specific Relief
WEBLIOGHRAPHY


www.indiankanoon.com
www.lawfirm.in
4|Page
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
The Petitioner have approached the Honorable District Court of Rohini, New Delhi under
Section 16 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
5|Page
STATEMENT OF FACTS
Naman won Rs. 1 Crore in Indian Idol Junior, 2019 on 5th August 2019. His father advised him
to purchase a small flat and a car for himself with the prize money. Naman entered into an
agreement with Mohit for purchasing a 4BHK flat in Gurgaon on 1st January 2020. He also
purchased Mohit’s old Jaguar the same day and rendered an advance of Rs. 80 lakhs and
promised to pay Rs. 40 lakhs in the form of monthly installment over the period of a year.
Naman returned Rs.10 lakhs to Mohit in the month of February. In June Naman met with an
accident. On 12th August Naman’s family celebrated his homecoming and his 18th birthday. On
the same day Mohit went to Naman and mentioned that he is in severe debt. Naman promised
to pay him Rs. 5 lakhs in monthly installments instead of Rs. 30 lakhs that was due. Mohit
readily agreed to such an arrangement as he was under sever debt. On September 23, Mohit got
to know that Naman has bought a plot in Rajasthan for 20 lakhs. The next day, he asked Naman
for 30 lakhs that was due to him under the agreement of 1 January. Naman refused to pay the
balance but agreed to pay Rs 5 lakhs as promised earlier. On 31 October 2020 Mohit sued
Naman for recovering Rs. 30 lakhs from him.
6|Page
ISSUES RAISED
(I)
Whether the agreement between Naman and Mohit entered on 1 January 2020 valid?
(II)
Whether the agreement between Naman and Mohit entered on 12 August 2020 valid?
(III)
Whether Naman is bound to restore the benefits received to Mohit?
7|Page
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
ISSUE 1
The agreement which came into existence between Naman and Mohit on 1 January, 2020 is
invalid in nature, by the time Naman entered into the agreement he was 17 years old, a minor
and as per Section 11 of The Indian Contract, A minor cannot enter into a contract.
According to the Judgment of Mohoribibi vs Dharmodas Ghose that any agreement with a
minor is void ab initio.
ISSUE 2
The agreement which came into existence between Naman and Mohit on 12th August 2020
is valid and enforceable by law as the contract consideration from both the parties and have
agreed with their own free consent.
ISSUE 3
Naman is not bound to restore any benefits received, to Mohit. As the contract they entered
into on 12 August 2020 is valid as there is consideration in the agreement and both the
parties had their free consent while entering the agreement and, Since Naman had attained
majority at the time of agreement he is free to follow the terms of the agreement in which he
will be paying Rs 5 lakh as month installments to the petitioner.
8|Page
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
1. The Agreement between Naman and Mohit on 1st January is invalid
 Provision under The Indian Contract Act 1872
“Every person is competent to contract who is of the age of majority according to the
law he is subjected, and who is of sound mind, and is not disqualified from
contracting by any law to which he is subjected to”.
 Provision under The Indian Majority Act 1875
“Every person domiciled in India shall attain the age of majority on his/her
completing the age of eighteen years and not before”.
Mohiri Bibi Vs Dharmodas Ghose (1903)
In the present case Dharmodas Ghose, a minor, borrowed Rs.20, 000 from Brahmo
Dutt for a mortgage. Later Dharmodas Ghose brought an action against Brahmo Dutt
claiming that the contract entered by them is void In the present case it was held that,
any contract with minor is void ab initio as minor is not competent to enter a contract
and such agreement not enforceable by law.
Taking the presented Case laws and statues into account shows that a person who has
not attained majority through age is not competent to enter any agreement and if a
minor enters into a contract, that contract will be considered void ab initio
2. Agreement between Naman and Mohit entered on 12th August 2020 is valid
Provisions under The Indian Contract Act 1872
1. Section 2(a) of The Indian Contract Act
“When one person signifies to another his willingness to do or to abstain from doing
anything with a view to obtaining the assent of that other to such act or abstinence, he
is said to make a proposal”
2. Section 2(b) of the Indian Contract Act
“When person to whom the proposal is made signifies his assent thereto, the proposal
is said to be accepted and when proposal is accepted and becomes promise”.
9|Page
3. Section 2(e) of the Indian Contract
“Every promise and every set of promises, forming the consideration for each other, is
an agreement”.
4. Section 11 of the Indian Contract Act
“Every person is competent to contract when he/she has attained the age of majority
and who is of sound mind while entering into the agreement and has not disqualified
by any law.”
5. Section 10 of the Indian Contract Act
“All agreements are contract if they are made by the free consent of parties
competent to contract, for lawful consideration and with a lawful object and are not
declared to be void
3. Naman is not bound to restore the benefits received to Mohit.
1. It is submitted before the Hon’ble court that Naman was a minor at the time when
he first entered into an agreement with Mohit on 1st January 2020 which lead to
the agreement to be void ab intio.
2. However the contract which came into existence on 12th August 2020 between
Naman and Mohit is valid and enforceable by law since Mohit attained majority
by the time he again entered into a contract
3. Since the contract is valid Naman is bound to follow the terms of the contract by
paying monthly instalments of Rs. 5 Lakhs to Mohit as agreed by the both
parties.
4. Therefore Mohit’s claims for Rs. 30 Lakhs is vague and unacceptable. Naman is
legally free to follow the terms stated in the contract of 12th August 2020,
through which Naman is not bound to pay the entire sum of 30 Lakhs in one
payment and did not need to restore any benefits received.
10 | P a g e
PRAYER OF RELIEF
Wherefore in the light of the issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited, it is
humbly prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to adjudge and declare that:
(I)
The agreement between Naman and Mohit entered on 1 January 2020 is not valid
(II)
The agreement between Naman and Mohit entered on 12 August 2020 is valid
(III)
Naman is not bound to restore the benefits received to Mohit.
And pass any other order, direction, or relief that this Hon’ble Court may deem fit in the
interests of justice, equity and good conscience
All of which is humbly prayed,
Counsels for the Petitioner
11 | P a g e