JUDGMENT

Sulaiman, Ag. C.J.

1. The present case must be decided on the provisions of the Contract Act. Analogies drawn from the English common law where the contract of a minor is only voidable, are wholly inappropriate when we have a codified law in this country. Since the case of Mohori Bibee v. Dharmodas Ghose [1903] 30 Cal. 539 it is now settled law that a contract by a minor is not only voidable, but is altogether void. But although such a contract is void, it cannot be said to be prohibited by law or otherwise unlawful. Nor does any question of public policy arise. Section 23 is inapplicable.

2. u/s 11 a minor is not competent to contract. He is disqualified from contracting. He can, therefore, neither make a valid proposal, nor make a valid acceptance as defined in Section 2, Clauses (a) and (b). He cannot, therefore, for the purposes of the Act be strictly called a promisor within the meaning of Clause (c). Nor can, therefore, anything done by the promisee be strictly called a consideration at the desire of a promisor as contemplated by Clause (d). It may, therefore, be urged that an agreement by a minor cannot be strictly described as being one for "consideration" as defined