Uttamchand Vs. Mohandas

Uttamchand  Vs.  Mohandas

AIR 1964 Raj  50

Key Words: subsequent discovery of illegality, partnership, minor


Plaintiff, a minor, claimed recovery of the vacant possession of the shop which he had given for carrying out the business in which he was made a partner (his guardian signed on behalf of him). In the initial proceedings, plaintiff came to know of the illegality.


Whether the contract was void ab-initio or discovered to be void?


Although the parties to the contract are presumed to know the law, yet the presumption is rebutted if it is proven that the parties are in misapprehension, lack of knowledge or apprehension as to their rights. In the present case, firstly, a guardian can though validly enter into a partnership agreement on behalf of a minor for admitting latter to the benefits of the partnership where partnership already exists, yet a minor can never be made a partner in a firm, in the instant case from the terms of the agreement the intention of the parties to make plaintiff only beneficiary and not be liable for losses of partnership could be implicit; Secondly, plaintiff though came to the Court seeking to enforce the contract, but with further proceedings, case to know of the illegality of the contract. Therefore, on account of conduct of the parties, facts and circumstances of the case, the contract was discovered to be void and plaintiff was entitled to recovery of the possession of the property.

Author: Vishrut Kansal


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s