| Citation | Khan Gul V. Lakha Singh Air 1928 Lah 609 Case Analysis |
| Keywords | |
| Facts | Plaintiffs brought a suit for possession of half a square which had been sold to them by defendant 1 for Rs. 17,500 out of which Rs. 8,000 had been paid in cash before the Sub−Registrar and Rs. 9,500 was secured by a promissory note payable on demand from the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs alleged that defendant 1 had been duly paid Rs. 17,500 because the promissory note for Rs. 9,500 in his favour had been discharged by another promissory note executed by the plaintiff in favour of the defendant‘s brother−in−law Muhammad Hussain at the request and with the consent of the defendant, that the plaintiffs had paid Rs. 5,500 out of the Rs. 9,500 to Muhammad Hussain and were prepared to pay the balance. The trial Court decreed the suit for possession holding that defendant 1 had made a false representation that he was of full age to the plaintiffs and was therefore estopped from raising the plea of minority |
| Issues | Whether a minor, who, by falsely representing himself to be a major, has induced a person to enter into a contract, is estopped from pleading his minority to avoid the contract. a person to contract with him by means of a false representation that he was of full age, he is not estopped from pleading his infancy in avoidance of the contract . − As the opposite member knowingly may enter into contract. Whether a party, false representation as to his age, whether he be defendant or plaintiff, in a subsequent litigation, refuse to perform the contract and at the same time retain the benefit he may have derived therefrom. Doctrine of restitution an infant though not liable under the contract, may in equity required to return the benefit he has received by making a false representation as to his age. |
| Contentions | |
| Law Points | |
| Judgment | Wsinda Ram V. Sita Ram Whether a minor is estopped from pleading minority when he has made a false representation as to his age Original position − no contract or give and take if minor has come into contract by representing itself as major Doctrine of estoppel Section 115 of evidence act reads: “When one person has, by his declaration, act or omission, intentionally caused or permitted another person to believe a thing to be true and to act upon such belief, neither he nor his representative shall be allowed, in any suit or proceeding between himself and such person or his representative, to deny the truth of that thing”. Leslie V sheill − Doctrine of restitutionIf he obtain goods − It can restore Doctrine of equity If goods is sold − cant be restore − So no contract − Void Section 41 − Specific relief act − Doctrine of restitution |
| Ratio Decidendi & Case Authority |
Full Case Details
To do
