Login : Advocate | Client
Home Post Your Case My Account Law College Law Library

Report No. 185

Section 115

In the 69th Report, after considerable discussion of the principle of estoppel and promissory estoppel, it was recommended in para 57.24 of the 69th report that an Explanation be added dealing with the position of 'minors'.

The proposal in para 57.24 for adding an Explanation is made applicable to "minor or other persons under disability". But, in para 57.15, while it was accepted that in matters not relating to contracts or transfers of property (i.e. where section 11 of Contract Act did not apply), the principle of estoppel must apply. Sub para (c) in para 57.18 says:

"(a) But this does not mean that a minor can never be estoppe.- Under section 116, for example, i.e. between a landlord and tenant, a minor can be estopped. This is because section 11 of the Contact Act does not come in the way, where the original tenancy was not extended in to by a minor, who has now succeeded to the property."

It was to cover such cases also that in para 57.24, a recommendation was made to add the following Explanation:

"Explanation.- This section applies to a minor or other person under disability; but nothing in this section shall affect any provision of law whereby the minor or other person under disability becomes incompetent to incur a particular liability."

So far as sub para (o) of para 57.18 is concerned, we do not really see why it is necessary to make a further qualification.

We think that the first part of the Explanation "This section applies to a minor or other person under disability" is not necessary. In fact, it gives a wrong notion of the proposed Explanation.

Even the second part requires some re-drafting. We, therefore, recommend a proviso as follows:

"Provided that nothing contained in this section shall apply to minors or other persons under disability for the purpose of enforcing any liability arising out of a representation made by such persons, where a contract entered into by such persons incurring a like liability would have been null and void."

Review of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 Back

Client Area | Advocate Area | Blogs | About Us | User Agreement | Privacy Policy | Advertise | Media Coverage | Contact Us | Site Map
powered and driven by neosys