Thus, it could be said that under the law, an agreement formed and concluded by a minor is void. The Indian Contract Act states that only a person who is an adult who has reached the age of 18 is under contract. The main reason for the nullity of a minor`s agreement is that an agreement by which a minor contains a promise on his or her part or promise is an essential element of the agreement, since a minor is not qualified to make a promise imposing a legal obligation. In certain circumstances, a guardian of a minor could enter into a valid contract on behalf of the minor. Such an agreement, concluded by the guardian for the benefit of the minor, could also be applied by the minor. The Tribunal decided that no agreement was a contract unless the parties have jurisdiction under section 11 of the Act. A minor is a person who has not reached the age of 18 and the majority for each contract is an essential condition precedent. Under Indian law, the miners` agreement is void, which means that it has absolutely no position in the eyes of the law. A contract with minors is therefore null and void, none of the parties being able to impose it. And even after the person has obtained a majority, he cannot ratify the same agreement. The difference is that a minor`s contract is null/void; A contract is therefore not illegal, as there is no legislation on the matter. Under section 26 of the Act, a minor may draw, support and negotiate, and may hire anyone but himself. Any person who is contractual under the law to which he is subject may bind himself and be bound by the manufacture, subscription, acceptance, delivery and negotiation of a voucher, cheque or change.

Facts – plaintiff Dharmodas Ghosh, when he was a minor, mortgaged his property from the defendant, a lender. At that time, the defendant`s lawyer was aware of the applicant`s age. The complainant subsequently paid only 8000 rupees, but refused to pay the rest of the money. The applicant`s mother was at that time his next friend (legal guardian), so he brought an action against the defendant and declared that he was a minor at the time the contract was concluded, so that the contract was not valid and he was not bound to it. As a minor`s agreement was not concluded, he was unable to validate it by ratifying it by majority. For example, a miner borrows money and executes a voucher. When the age of majority is reached, he presents a new debt instrument to replace the one introduced as a minor. . . .