KHAN GUL v.

LAKHA SINGH : CASE ANALYSIS

Submitted by: ISHITA

Batch 2022-27, BA LLB. Division E

PRN:2201223088

Symbiosis Law School, NOIDA

Symbiosis International (Deemed University), Pune

In

September 2022

Under the Guidance of

Ms. Sakshi Tewari

(Course in Charge, Law of Contracts)
(email: [Link]@[Link])

1
CERTIFICATE

The project named 'Khan Gul v. Lakha Singh' submitted to Symbiosis Law
School, NOIDA as part of Internal Continuous Evaluation for Law of
Contract is based on my original work and was completed under the
supervision of Dr. Sakshi Tewari. The material taken from other sources

and included into the project has been duly credited.

2
ACKNOWLEDGMENT

I'd like to express my heartfelt gratitude to Dr. Sakshi Tewari for guiding
me throughout the project, assisting me in thoroughly understanding the
basis of my topic, and answering my questions whenever they arose.

I would also like to appreciate the library department and academic

support of Symbiosis Law School, NOIDA for supplying me with various
electronic research resources and materials to assist in making my
project as original as possible.

I would want to thank Symbiosis Law School, NOIDA, for granting me

this project so that I could easily comprehend the basic information
regarding this case law with full detail.

3
INDEX

S. No. Particulars Pg. No.

1. Introduction 5
2. Research Objective 5
3. Facts of the case 5-6
4. Procedural History 6
5. Issues 6
6. Rules 6
7. Analysis 6-8
8. Conclusion 8-9
9. Bibliography 9

4
INTRODUCTION

One of the most important elements of a valid contract is the capacity of

the parties to enter into a contract. According to The Indian Contract Act
1872, section 11 defines a person's ability to enter into a contract as
being contingent on three factors: reaching the age of majority, being
mentally stable, and not being barred from contracting by any of the laws
to which he is subject to.1

As per the Indian Majority Act of 1875, the age of majority in India is 18
years and above.2 Any person whose age is even a day less than the age
of 18 years (minor) is disqualified from entering into a contract as law
assumes that minors lack the maturity or the mental capacity to make
informed decisions on their own. As a minor is not eligible to enter into a
contract, any contract entered into by a minor is considered as void ab
initio. Such contract cannot be made binding/enforceable even if the
minor ratifies it after he/she has attained the age of majority.

RESEARCH OBJECTIVE

The objective of this paper is to analyse the landmark judgment of Khan

Gul v. Lakha Singh3 in context of the provisions laid down in the Indian
Contract Act, 1872 and to also analyse the relevancy of the said
judgement in the modern context.

FACTS OF THE CASE

1
Avtar singh, Contract & Specific Relief, 153, (EBC, 12 ed., 2017).
2
The Majority Act, 1875, § 3(1), No. 9, Acts of the Parliament, 1875 (India).
3
Khan Gul v. Lakha Singh, AIR 1928 Lah 609 (FB).

5
 1) In this case, the respondent entered into a contract with the
appellant, a minor who had misrepresented his age as 19 years,
relying on which the respondent purchased half-square of land for
INR 17,500 from the appellant.
2) The respondent paid ₹8,000 in cash before the Sub-Registrar and
the remaining amount of ₹9,500 was ensured via a promissory note
executable on the appellant’s demand .
3) The respondent alleged that the payment of INR 17,500 was duly
paid to the appellant as he had executed another promissory note in
favour of the appellant’s brother-in-law. However, after receiving
the money, the appellant refused to transfer the property to the
respondent.
4) On such refusal by the appellant, the respondent demanded the
ownership of the property or damages for breach of contract
amounting to INR 19,000.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY
After refusal of possession by the appellant, the respondent filed a suit
before the trial court. The trial court decided the matter in the favour of
the Respondent and the court decree enforced the contract by the
application of Doctrine of Estoppel. This was challenged by the defendant
before the Lahore HC.

ISSUES

1) Whether Doctrine of Estoppel applies on a minor?

2) Whether the accused has the right to refuse to carry out his
obligations under the contract and also retain the advantage
(consideration) accrued to him due to the contract?

RULES

Major rules and laws considered by the court in deliberating the issues in
the said case are the following:

6
Section 10 of the Indian Contract Act, 18724

Section 11 of the Indian Contract Act 18725

Section 65 of the Indian Contract Act, 18726

Section 115 of the Indian Evidence Act, 18727

ANALYSIS

In this case, the Lahore High Court held that the Doctrine of Estoppel is
inapplicable to contracts entered into by minors. However, the court by
citing Jenning v. Rundall8 stated that the minors protection should be
utilised as a shield and not as a sword. Therefore, the court stated that it
would be blatant injustice for the minor to keep both the property and
also the money acquired via the contract. The court in exercising its
equitable authority, held that both the parties shall be restored to the
positions they held before the establishment of the contract. In this
scenario, restitution cannot be offered because there is no contract in the
first place, and both parties should return to their former state as the
transaction is wiped out. It was also held that the minor cannot be asked
for specific performance to deliver the property but he can definitely be
asked for restoration of the benefit that he has incurred from the
contract.

The case of Mohori Bibee v. Dharmodas Ghose9 becomes highly relevant

when the minor’s capacity to enter contracts comes into discussion. In
this case, a minor mortgaged his property to a money lender for a loan of
₹20,000 and the money lender had the knowledge of the fact that he’s
entering into a contract with a minor. The court in this case held that a
contract entered into by a minor is void ab initio and is thereby
unenforceable. In addition, the court laid down that since the defendant

4
The Indian Contract Act, 1872, § 10, No. 9, Acts of Parliament, 1872 (India).
5
The Indian Contract Act, 1872, § 11, No. 9, Acts of Parliament, 1872 (India).
6
The Indian Contract Act, 1872, § 65, No. 9,Acts of Parliament, 1872 (India).
7
The Indian Evidence Act, 1872, § 115, No. 1,Acts of Parliament, 1872 (India).
8
Jenning v. Rundall, 8 L.R. 335.
9
Mohori Bibee vs. Dharmodas Ghose, (1903) 30 Cal. 539.

7
knew about the minority of the mortgagee, the minor is not required to
repay the benefit accrued to him due to the mortgage. Even though the
precedent laid down in this case has been followed in numerous other
judgments, the courts have repeatedly deviated from this precedent. One
such historic decision that deviated from the Mohori Bibee case was the
Khan Gul vs. Lakha Singh case.10

The Khan Gul case was decided in 1928 which makes it nearly a century
old case. The researcher is of the opinion that the judgement laid down in
this case could have been valid and relevant in the social setting of the
1920s, but now the reality and circumstances have changed. It can be
rightfully said that the minors of the 21st century are way more advanced
and smart as compared to the gullible minors of the 1920s. Minors of the
21st century are doing wonders which is evident from the fact that
numerous start-ups are being founded by minors. An example of this can
be the Kumaran Brothers who founded the start-up, ‘Go Dimensions’ and
received Forbes 30 under 30 awards.11 So it can be rightfully said that
the mental capacity of minors to make decisions and form free consent to
enter into contracts has developed exponentially. In such context, the
researcher opines that the ratio laid down in the Khan Gul case might be
irrelevant to day to the extent that a minor should not be given the
benefit minority where he/she has misrepresented his/her age.

The legislature enacted the Juvenile Justice Act in 2000, which laid down
the age of juvenile as less than 18 years 12. However, the legislature by
the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 reduced the age of juvenile from 18 years
to 16 years for certain heinous crimes. As per this amendment, minors
above the age of 16 years are to be treated as adults and they would no
longer get the benefit of the procedure laid down for juveniles as per the
Juvenile Justice Act. So, if the legislature is of the opinion that minors can
be held criminally liable, and that minors have proper understanding of

10
Supra Note 3.
11
Shravan Kumaran & Sanjay Kumaran, Youngest Mobile Application Programmers,
India, WORLD ECONOMIC FORUM, (last visited Sept. 26, 2022)
[Link]
12
The Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, § 2(k), No. 59, Acts of Parliament, 2000 (India).

8
their criminal acts and their consequences, why can't civil liability be
imposed on minors keeping in mind the fact that criminal liability has far
more serious consequences as compared to civil liability? After
presenting all these arguments, the researcher is of the standpoint that a
legislative reform is required as per which civil liabilities can be imposed
on minors in order to prevent them from taking undue advantage of their
minority and exploiting the rights of other individuals.

CONCLUSION

The Lahore High Court's decision in this case held that minors are
protected by law, but not completely, and the minor cannot take undue
advantage of his minority, and if minor enters into a contract by wilful
misrepresentation, then in such case he can be asked to return the
benefit accrued to him from the contract. As observed in this case, the
minor had deliberately portrayed himself as a major and tried to take
advantage of the respondent, but the High Court ordered the minor to
repay only the benefit accrued, with no further damages, to the appellant
simply because the appellant was under the age of majority.

The arguments presented by the researcher w.r.t the relevancy of the

judgment in the modern context can be justified from the fact that
countries around the world have reduced the age of minority for
imposing civil liability. One such example is Argentina, which in 2015
reduced the age to 10 years for a minor to be personally liable for his
civil wrongs. In this context, it can be said that in India, the age of
minority needs to be relooked at so that it cannot be utilised as sword by
the minors to infringe rights of other individuals.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Books

1. Avtar Singh, Contract & Specific Relief (EBC, 12 ed., 2017)

Legal Database

9
 1. Manupatra
2. Indian Kanoon
3. SCCOnline

Online Articles

1. [Link]
910241928/[Link]
2. [Link]

10