MEMORANDUM for RESPONDENT (TABLE OF CONTENTS) I

TEAM CODE: 31 A

IMS UNISON UNIVERSITY

1 ST
EDITION OF NOVICE MOOT COURT
CO MPETITION, 2023

BEFORE THE

HIGH COURT OF CHANGLORE

IN THE CIVIL MATTER OF –

M/ S. V E R M A & V E R M A ………………………...APPELLANT

VERS US

KARTIK SHARMA ………………………………. RESPONDENT

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

TAMIL NADU DR. AMBEDKAR LAW UNIVERSITY, 1ST EDITION MEMORIAL DRAFTING
COMPETITION 2023
 MEMORANDUM for APPELLANT (TABLE OF CONTENTS) I

TABLE OF CO NTENTS

TABLE OF ABBREVIATIONS............................................................................................II

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES................................................................................................III

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION….................................................................................V

STATEMENT OF FACTS...................................................................................................VI

STATEMENT OF ISSUES................................................................................................VIII

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS...........................................................................................IX

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED…............................................................................................XI

I. WHETHER THERE IS A VALID CONTRACT BETWEEN

M/S. VERMA & VERMA AND MR. KARTIK SHARMA?

C XI
R XII
D XII

II. WHETHER THE JUDGMENT PASSED IN MOHORI BIBEE V.

DHARMODAS GHOSE NEEDS RECONSIDERATION?

XIV

XV

XV

III. WHETHER THE CIVIL COURT OF CHANGLORE WAS

CORRECT IN REJECTING THE PLEA OF
RESTITUTION?

B…………….,...............................................................................................XVIII

R XX

XX

PRAYER…........................................................................................................................XXI

1ST NOVICE MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2023

MEMORANDUM for APPELLANT (TABLE OF ABBREVIATION) II

TABLE 0 F ABBREVIATIONS

ABBREVIATIONS WORDS

HC High Court

Hon’ble Honorable

Sec. Section

& And

Anr. Another

Ltd. Limited

AIR All India Reporter

Ors. Others

Rs. Indian Rupees

V. Versus

Co. Company

Amt. Amount

1ST NOVICE MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2023

MEMORANDUM for APPELLANT [INDEX OF AUTHORITIES] IV

INDEX OF AUTHO RITIES

S. CASES PAGE
NO. NUMBER
XV
1.

XIX
2.

XX
3.

XI
4.

XVII
5.

XVIII
6.

XIII
7.
XX
8.

XVII
9.

XII
10.
XII
11.
XIII
12.
XVIII
13.

1ST NOVICE MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2023

MEMORANDUM for APPELLANT [INDEX OF AUTHORITIES] V

XV
14.

XX
15.

IX
16.

S. STATUTES
NO.
1. THE INDIAN CONTRACT ACT, 1872

2. THE INDIAN MAJORITY ACT, 1875

3. THE SPECIFIC RELIEF ACT, 1963

4.

5.

S. BOOKS
NO.
1. Mulla The Indian Contract Act (15" Edition, 2016)

2. Eastern Book Company's Contract & Specific Relief by Avtar Singh, Rajesh
Kapoor

3.

4.

5. Black’s Law Dictionary

1ST NOVICE MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2023

MEMORANDUM for APPELLANT [STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION]

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The jurisdiction of this Hon'ble High Court of Changlore is invoked under Section
96(1) of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, by the Appellant, challenging the decision of
the Learned Civil Court, Changlore. The relevant provision of law is read out as
follows-

Section 96(1) of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908-

96. Appeal from original decree. - (1) Save where otherwise expressly provided in the
body of this Code or by any other law for the time being in force, an appeal shall lie from
every decree passed by any Court exercising original jurisdiction to the Court authorized
to hear appeals from the decisions of such Court. ’

The Council most humbly and respectfully, submits that this Hon'ble Court has the requisite
subject matter jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate this matter.

1st NOVICE MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2023

MEMORANDUM for APPELLANT [STATEMENT OF FACTS] VI

STATEMENT OF FACTS

[BACKGROUND]

1. The "Sensational Voice of the Nation" title belongs to Kartik Sharma, a sixteen-
year-old prodigy and incredible vocalist from Indiana. He desired a multi-
purpose, ultra- modern architectural marvel with a roof-top pool where he could
host events, his recording studio, and a theatre for live musical performances.
2. He misrepresented himself as a major and assigned the project to M/s. Verma &
Verma, a renowned building constructor and infrastructure provider who knew about
this fact. They proposed to complete the full task for Rs. 10,00,000.
3. Kartik Sharma accepted their offer, which called for paying the sum in a series of
installments when the various stages of the contracted work were finished.
4. In accordance with the terms of the contract, M/s. Verma & Verma finished building
the first floor, which was designated for the music theatre, and the ground floor,
which was used for parking, but they ran out of money and materials to finish the
project. They informed Kartik that they would not be able to finish the building
without additional funding.
5. Kartik requested to spend the remaining amount of Rs.7,00,000/- on the work out of
their own funds to continue with the construction work of the roof top pool so that he
could arrange a poolside party inviting top music directors, producers and other
renowned individuals in the music industry whom he believed would fund him for his
dream music albums and music tours, assuring them to pay the money back as soon
as his album is released.
6. The rooftop pool was finished, and the party went well. As a result of the party's
success, Shiva and Nirvalia Producers signed a contract in which they agreed to pay
for the fusion albums and international tours. Kartik made a promise to Ms. Tina
Verma, the Manager of Verma & Verma that he would surely repay the 7,00,000/-.
Kartik’s most recent fusion music release, however, was a complete failure. In light
of this, he later realized he was unable to fulfill his promise to Ms. Tina Verma, to
pay the sum of Rs.7,00,000/-.

1st NOVICE MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2023

MEMORANDUM for APPELLANT [STATEMENT OF FACTS] VII

7. In exchange for Ms. Tina Verma agreeing to let Kartik off the hook for paying the
debt of Rs. 7,00,000/-, Shiva agreed to perform music at her party in order to gain
contracts for building, construction, etc. He did, however, have a really sore throat
prior to the party from overdoing practices. On the advice of his physician, he later
declined to perform at Ms. Tina’s celebration.
8. On Kartik’s eighteenth birthday, both the parties, on grounds of humanity, agreed
on the same point that Shiva would pay the debt through easy monthly installments
(EMIs) of Rs.20,000/- per month till the repayment of the amount of Rs.7,00,000/-
9. Later Kartik pointed out that the material used for constructing was sub- standard
and not satisfactory. He estimated that this would have cost them Rs.3,00,000/- only.
He claimed that he had paid the money already.
10. Kartik then made the decision to sell his belongings without making any payments to
M/s. Verma & Verma. They then sent him a legal notice demanding the repayment of
the money within 15 days. Kartik, however, made no correspondence or response to
the aforementioned notice. Instead, he made a derogatory post on his social media,
where he had nearly 15,000 followers, accusing M/s. Verma & Verma of defrauding
people with their subpar construction work.
11. In this case, M/s. Verma & Verma filed a lawsuit in the State of Indiana's Civil
Court of Changlore, requesting an injunction preventing Kartik from selling the
property until the matter was resolved. Additionally, they filed a defamation lawsuit
against Shiva since his social media post cost them two significant projects.
12. The Civil Court of Changlore heard the matter and held that a minor’s contract is void
ab inito and thus set Kartik free from all his liabilities towards M/s. Verma & Verma
by upholding the judgment passed in Mohori Bibee v. Dharmodas Ghose.
13. M/s. Verma & Verma preferred an appeal before the High Court of Changlore.
The High Court granted injunction and has decided to hear the case on merit.

1st NOVICE MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2023

MEMORANDUM for APPELLANT [SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS] X

S TATEMENT OF ISSUES

ISSUE I

Whether there is a valid contract between M/s. Verma & Verma and Mr. Kartik
Sharma?

ISSUE II

Whether the judgment passed in Mohori Bibee V. Dharmodas Ghose needs

reconsideration?

ISSUE III

Whether the Civil Court of Changlore was correct in rejecting the plea of restitution?

1st NOVICE MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2023

MEMORANDUM for APPELLANT [SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS] X

SUMMARY OF ARG UMENTS

ISSUE I. Whether there is a valid contract between M/s. Verma & Verma and Mr.
Kartik Sharma?

ISSUE II. Whether the judgment passed in Mohori Bibee V. Dhamodas Ghose needs
reconsideration?

ISSUE III. Whether the Civil Court of Changlore was correct in rejecting the
plea of restitution?

1st NOVICE MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2023

MEMORANDUM for APPELLANT [SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS] X

1st NOVICE MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2023

 MEMORANDUM for APPELLANT [ARGUMENTS] XI

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

ISSUE I. Whether there is a valid contract between M/s. Verma & Verma and Mr.
Kartik Sharma?

The Appellant most humbly sets forth that the contract between M/s. Verma & Verma and
Mr. Kartik Sharma is valid because it encapsulates the necessary elements requires in the
present matter at hand.
According to Section2 (h) an agreement which is enforceable by law makes up a valid Contract.
It therefore, it is humbly submitted that the contract between the appellant and the Respondent is
valid under the following sections of Indian Contract Act.

[1.1]
[1.2]

[1.1]

1st NOVICE MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2023

 MEMORANDUM for APPELLANT (ARGUMENTS) XII

Section 68: Claim for necessaries supplied to a person incapable of contracting, or on his
account.
If a person, incapable of entering into a contract, or any one whom he is legally bound to
support, is supplied by another person with necessaries suited to his condition in life, the person
who has furnished such supplies is entitled to be reimbursed from the property of such incapable
person.

The aforementioned section expressly states that a “person incapable of entering into a contract”
which includes – a minor, an insane and a person otherwise disqualified to contract by law.

This act therefore states that any person who supplies the necessaries to another person who is
incompetent to contract, can reimburse from the property of such incapable person.
Here, in the present matter, the facts clearly indicate that Kartik Sharma is a budding singer and
the contract of the multi-purpose architectural marvel is one of necessity for Kartik Sharma. This
can be ascertained as:
 Kartik Sharma has been the recipient of the “Sensational Voice of the Nation” award in
Indiana.
 He is an astounding singer, extremely versatile in rap, rock, hip-hop, jazz, classical and
even folk.
 Kartik Sharma wanted to further develop is musical career by releasing fusion albums and
also engaging in musical tours.
 The multi-purpose marvel Kartik wanted to build would also have his own recording
studio and theatre for live performances, as per the contract.

Therefore the above points establish that this contract was of a necessity to Mr. Kartik Sharma,
the respondent in the present case.
Thus, the contract form between the parties is a valid contract.

In the case of Kunwarlal Daryavsingh vs. Surajmal Makhanlal 1

The Court held that the house given to minor on rent for living and continuing his studies is
deemed to supply of necessaries suited to the minor’s condition in life, and the rent for the house
can be recovered.

1
AIR 1963, M.P. 58
1st NOVICE MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2023
 MEMORANDUM for APPELLANT (ARGUMENTS) XIII

In the case of Jagon Ram Marwari vs. Mahadeo Prasad Sahu2 it was observed that the infants’
need of things may sometimes depend upon the peculiar circumstances under which they are
purchased and the use to which they are put. For instance, articles purchased by an infant for his
wedding may be deemed necessary while under ordinary circumstances the same articles might
not be so considered.
In Clyde Cycle Co. vs. Hargreaves3, it has been held that a racing cycle is necessary for an infant
apprentice.
In case of Chapple vs. Copper4it was held that infant widow is bound by contract for the burial of
her husband as the contract is for a necessity.
From the above-mentioned cases the petitioner contends that although he is a minor, he has
entered into the contract because buying a cricket kit is a necessity for him as the petition wants
to make career in Cricket. Thus, the contract is a valid contract.

Suraj Narain Dube v. Sukhu Aheer and Anr

In this case, Allahabad High Court held that the old consideration by the minor is not valid consideration for a
fresh contract. 
 Introduction: 
o Case Name: Suraj Narain Dube v. Sukhu Aheer and Anr 
o Before the: Allahabad High Court 
o Decided on: 06.07.1928 
o Appellant: Suraj Narain Dube 
o respondent: Sukhu Aheer and Anr 
o Citation: AIR 1928 All 440 

2
I.L.R [1909] 36 Cal. 768
3
[1898] 78 L.T. 296
4
[1844] 13 M. and W. 252
1st NOVICE MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2023
MEMORANDUM for APPELLANT (ARGUMENTS) XIV

ISSUE II. Whether the judgment passed in Mohori Bibee V. Dharmodas Ghose needs
reconsideration?

It is humbly submitted to this Hon'ble Court that there was no error in the judgement of the
Civil Court of Sardam, the contract between the Appellants and the Respondents was void ab
initio and the Civil Court of Sardam has observed the same while rejecting the plea of
restitution.

[2.1] Burden to prove the fact asserted is on the appellant:

Whoever claims a legal right before a court depending upon the existence of certain
facts that he asserts and prays to the court to give a judgment in his favour, must
prove those facts and hence, owns the burden of proof. Onus probandi means the
person who suggests a fact to be proved must adduce some evidence to prove it. The burden
of proof lies on the person whose claim would fail if no evidence is given on either side.
After the plaintiff discharges his onus in a proceeding, it is on the respondent on whom the
burden is cast upon to deny the suit filed against him. Until the respondent provides evidence
to support his claim, the decision shall be decreed in the favour of plaintiff.

In view of both the above provisions the burden of proof obviously lies on M/s. Brahmastra
& Co. who wants restitution of the plea while praying for injunction restraining Mr. Shiva
from selling the property until the suit was disposed in the court.
Also, since the onus of introducing evidence to prove a fact that they had constructed the
building as per the terms of the contract and had taken all the diligent steps to recover the
loan made available to Shiva for Rs.7,00,000/- but after his refusal to pay the said amount
and alleging fraud against him, does shift during a proceeding. So, when the minority factor

1st NOVICE MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2023

MEMORANDUM for APPELLANT (ARGUMENTS) XV

of the Respondent came forward it set Shiva free from all his liabilities towards M/s.
Brahmastra & Co. by upholding the judgment passed in Mohori Bibee v. Dharmodas Ghose,
the burden again shifts to the Appellant to counter the fact, which they were unable to.

1st NOVICE MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2023

MEMORANDUM for APPELLANT (ARGUMENTS) XVI

[2.2] Ratio Decidendi:

In the decided case of Ajudhia Prasad vs Chandan Lal10 the court opined, if Section 6511 of
the Indian Contract Act, 1872 is employed against a minor when he is a defendant the result
of such would be chaotic, all agreements by minors would by default be upheld and
enforced against them regardless of the fact that any mistake, misrepresentation, or fraud
was committed or not.

A decree of restoration would impose liability to pay on minors and such would quash the
protection provided by the legislation to them. This would open a wide door for mischief and
misuse. People would continue to contract with minors with confidence furthermore it will be
easy for people to obtain documentary evidence to support the charge of fraud against the
minors.

Thus, the counsel for the respondent pleads that the question of whether the Civil Court of
Sardam was correct in rejecting the plea of restitution should be dismissed.

[2.3] Ground of Rejection:

In the present case, the Civil Court of Sardam has not committed any error in law. The Civil
Court has respected the subsisting contract between the parties and has observed that the
agreement between was invalid from the very start.
There is no breach in law or natural justice; to say the decision of the Civil Court of Sardam
was wrong would be wrong because the matter has not been adjudicated on merits
whatsoever.

In T.R Appaswami Aiyangar vs Narayanaswami Aiyar and Ors. (1931)12, a case where the
money lender claims for restitution of his money under section 41 of Special Relief Act 1877,
but the lordship refused the situation because during the making of agreement the lender was
aware about the fact that the person is a minor. So, no restitution exists because there was full
knowledge.

10
Ajudhia Prasad & Anr. V. Chandan Lal & Anr. AIR 1937 ALL 610
11
Obligation of a person who has received advantage under void agreement, or contract that becomes void.
12
T.R Appaswami Aiyangar vs Narayanaswami Aiyar and Ors. (1931) 60 MLJ 117

1st NOVICE MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2023

MEMORANDUM for APPELLANT (ARGUMENTS) XVII

With this the counsel for the respondent put forward the point stated in the clarification of
the background guide, that Verma & Verma were aware right from the beginning of the
contract that Mr. Kartik was a minor.

Hence, it is humbly submitted to this Hon’ble Court that rejection of plea of restitution by the
lower court was correct.

1st NOVICE MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2023

 MEMORANDUM for APPELLANT (ARGUMENTS) XVIII

ISSUE III. Whether the Civil Court of Changlore was correct in rejecting the plea
of restitution?

It is humbly submitted to this Hon'ble Court that there was no error in the judgment of the
Civil Court of Sardam, the contract between the Appellants and the Respondents was void ab
initio and the Civil Court of Changlore has observed the same while rejecting the plea of
restitution.

[3.1] Burden to prove the fact asserted is on the appellant:

Whoever claims a legal right before a court depending upon the existence of certain
facts that he asserts and prays to the court to give a judgment in his favour, must prove
those facts and hence, owns the burden of proof. Onus probandi means the
person who suggests a fact to be proved must adduce some evidence to prove it. The burden
of proof lies on the person whose claim would fail if no evidence is given on either side.
After the plaintiff discharges his onus in a proceeding, it is on the respondent on whom the
burden is cast upon to deny the suit filed against him. Until the respondent provides evidence
to support his claim, the decision shall be decreed in the favor of plaintiff.

In view of both the above provisions the burden of proof obviously lies on M/s. Verma &
Verma who wants restitution of the plea while praying for injunction restraining Mr. Kartik
from selling the property until the suit was disposed in the court.
Also, since the onus of introducing evidence to prove a fact that they had constructed the
building as per the terms of the contract and had taken all the diligent steps to recover the
loan made available to Kartik for Rs.7,00,000/- but after his refusal to pay the said amount
and alleging fraud against him, does shift during a proceeding. So, when the minority factor
of the Respondent came forward it set Shiva free from all his liabilities towards M/s. Verma
& Verma by upholding the judgment passed in Mohori Bibee v. Dharmodas Ghose, the
burden again shifts to the Appellant to counter the fact, which they were unable to.

1st NOVICE MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2023

 MEMORANDUM for APPELLANT (ARGUMENTS) XIX

[3.2] Ratio Decidendi:

In the decided case of Ajudhia Prasad V. Chandan Lal10 the court opined, if Section 6515 of
the Indian Contract Act, 1872 is employed against a minor when he is a defendant the result
of such would be chaotic, all agreements by minors would by default be upheld and enforced
against them regardless of the fact that any mistake, misrepresentation, or fraud was
committed or not.

A decree of restoration would impose liability to pay on minors and such would quash the
protection provided by the legislation to them. This would open a wide door for mischief and
misuse. People would continue to contract with minors with confidence furthermore it will be
easy for people to obtain documentary evidence to support the charge of fraud against the
minors.

Thus, the counsel for the respondent pleads that the question of whether the Civil Court of
Changlore was correct in rejecting the plea of restitution should be dismissed.

[3.3] Ground of Rejection:

In the present case, the Civil Court of Changlore has not committed any error in law. The
Civil Court has respected the subsisting contract between the parties and has observed that
the agreement between was invalid from the very start.
There is no breach in law or natural justice; to say the decision of the Civil Court of
Changlore was wrong would be wrong because the matter has not been adjudicated on
merits whatsoever.

In T.R. Appaswami Aiyangar V. Narayanaswami Aiyar and Ors. (1931)62, a case where the
money lender claims for restitution of his money under Section 41 of Special Relief Act 1877,
but the lordship refused the situation because during the making of agreement the lender was
aware about the fact that the person is a minor. So, no restitution exists because there was full
knowledge.

With this the counsel for the respondent put forward the point stated in the clarification of the
background guide, that Verma & Verma were aware right from the beginning of the contract
5

6 10
Ajudhia Prasad & Anr. V. Chandan Lal & Anr. AIR 1937 ALL 610
11
Obligation of a person who has received advantage under void agreement, or contract that becomes void.
12
T.R Appaswami Aiyangar vs Narayanaswami Aiyar and Ors. (1931) 60 MLJ 117

1st NOVICE MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2023

 MEMORANDUM for APPELLANT (ARGUMENTS) XX

that Mr. Kartik was a minor.

7
Hence, it is humbly submitted to this Hon’ble Court that rejection of plea of restitution by the
lower court was correct

1st NOVICE MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2023

(MEMORANDUM for APPELLANT) (PRAYER) XXIV

PRAYER

Wherefore, in the light of the issues raised, arguments advanced, reasons given and
authorities cited, it is most humbly prayed before this Hon’ble Court, that it may be pleased
to:

A. Hold that, "there is no valid contract between M/s. Verma & Verma and Mr. Kartik
Sharma.
B. Hold that,

C. Declare that, the Civil Court of Changlore was correct in rejecting the
plea of restitution.

And/Or

Pass any other order, direction, or relief that it deems fit in the interest of Justice, Equity,
and Good Conscience, all of which is humbly prayed for.

DATE: ……………….. (S/d)

PLACE: HIGH COURT OF CHANGLORE (Counsel for the Respondent)

1st NOVICE MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2023