Facts- The complainant, Dharmodas Ghose, as a minor, mortgaged his property in favour of the accused, Brahmo Dutt, who was a money lender to secure a loan of 20,000. The actual amount of the loan was less than Rs 20,000. At the time of the transaction, the lawyer who acted on behalf of the money lender was aware that the complainant was a minor. Restitution is the act of restoring something to its rightful owner. When a minor has received a benefit from an inconclusive agreement, he or she cannot be asked to repay it. But if a minor receives property by fraudulently misrepresenting his or her age, the court may order the minor to restore ownership of the other party as long as it is traceable in his possession. It is a just doctrine of restoration. Most of the time, these two people qualified as treated have a similar meaning, but the difference between them lies in the way the bonus money. B is calculated as compensation, which is obtained on the basis of the loss suffered by the applicant, while the arbitration award is calculated at the time of restitution on the basis of the amount of earnings obtained by the defendant.

However, in some cases, the judge may, on the basis of the facts of a particular case, make the applicant choose between restitution and compensation. Estoppel is a rule of evidence that prevents one party from withdrawing its promise after leading the other party to keep that promise. The Estoppel rule does not apply to the miners` contract. A minor`s contract is null and void and, therefore, he cannot be deterred from cancelling, on the basis of his minority. Section 65 applies only if a contract was valid when it was entered into and only later became invalid. In addition, if the agreement was reached between a large person as a complainant and the minor defendant in this case, then the doctrine of restitution will not be applied, this was held in the case of Mohiri Bibi v/ s Dharmodass Ghosh, but the scenario will be different if minor presented his age evil and then it can be imposed by the court to render the execution. Section 10 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 provides that contracting parties must be competent and Section 11 provides that minors are not entitled to enter into a valid contract. But none of these sections or any other provision of the Contracts Act clearly indicates what happens to agreements made by a minor. Section 26 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 provides that a minor may purchase, approve, deliver and trade instruments such as a debt, exchange or cheque, in order to engage all parties except himself. This section protects and grants a minor immunity from liability arising from these instruments. Anyone who is able to enter into contracts in accordance with the law to which he is subject can commit himself and be related to the manufacture, subscription, acceptance, delivery and negotiation of a debt, cheque or change by a minor.

Under Section 30 of the Indian Partnership Act, a minor cannot become a partner in a business in 1932, may be admitted to the benefits of partnering with the agreement of all partners. A minor of this type has the right to share the assets and profits of the company in the agreed proportion, but cannot be held personally responsible for any of the acts. The provisions of the Indian Contract Act of 1872 and the previous pioneers lead to the conclusion that the agreement of a minor is null and void from the outset, with no effect or consequence. These agreements cannot be applied against a minor. However, there is some exception to this general rule, such as. B a minor authorized to assert a contract which is beneficial to him and which is not his responsibility, and if a minor has obtained an advantage by a false fraudulent presentation of his age, the court may, for the same reasons, order the minor to restore the property of the other party as long as he is traceable in his possession.