“A contract for the purchase of certain immovable property had been concluded by a guardian on behalf of a minor and the minor sued the other party for a decree relating to a specific benefit for the recovery of the property. His action was dismissed. The agreement of a minor is considered null and void, so there should be no obligation to perform part of the contract by one of the parties, and its effects are also null and void. But suppose that a minor, by misprosing his age, to induce another to conclude a contract with him, will there be an Estoppel against him? Pursuant to section 3 of Minor`s Contract Act 1987, the Tribunal gives the discretion to insist on the return of goods or property under an unenforceable contract with a minor (the law states that the court may “order” the refund, not that they will always do so). This means that if the minor has been exploited by an adult, the court may feel that it is simply not a matter of ordering a refund. However, in the event that a minor has taken advantage of an adult who uses the law to escape his obligations, the repayment will help to remedy the situation of the other party. Whether the minor can avoid a contract they enter into therefore depends on the nature of that contract. Section 10 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, requires the parties to be consistent (among other requirements) for an agreement to be a contract, and this contractual jurisdiction is defined in section 11 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. Section 11 of the Indian Contract Act can be comprised of two parts. The first part states that any adult is compatible with the contract. Well, here there is the majority that everyone knows is the eighteen-year-old.
The Indian Majority Act of 1875 provides a clear picture, since Section 3 of the Indian Majority Act of 1875 states that any person residing in India is considered of legal age only if the person has completed eighteen years and not before. . . .