Q.Rahul, a 16-year-old boy, buys a mobile phone worth ₹15,000 from a shop, on credit, promising to pay within a month. When the shopkeeper later demands payment, Rahul refuses, pointing out that he was a minor when he made the agreement. Examine the validity of this agreement, and state whether the shopkeeper has any remedy, with reference to the law relating to capacity of parties.

This is a direct application of the Mohori Bibee rule on a minor's agreement, combined with the narrower Section 68 'necessaries' exception.

Rahul, being 16, is a minor under Section 11 read with the Indian Majority Act, 1875, so his agreement to buy the phone on credit is void from the very beginning (Mohori Bibee v. Dharmodas Ghose, 1903) — Rahul is never personally liable to pay.

Step 1 — Is Rahul competent to contract? Under Section 11, a person is competent to contract only on attaining the age of majority (18 years, per the Indian Majority Act, 1875). Rahul, at 16, is a minor.

Step 2 — What is the effect of an agreement with a minor? Following the landmark ruling in Mohori Bibee v. Dharmodas Ghose (1903), an agreement with a minor is void ab initio — void from the very beginning — because a minor cannot give a legally recognised consent. It is not merely voidable, and Rahul cannot be personally sued for the ₹15,000.

Step 3 — Does the shopkeeper have ANY remedy? The only possible avenue is Section 68, which allows a claim, against the minor's PROPERTY (never the minor personally), for the value of genuine necessaries actually supplied to the minor. This is a narrow exception, and courts have generally read 'necessaries' to mean goods/services genuinely suited to a minor's condition and reasonable requirements in life (basic clothing, food, education, medical treatment) — not every discretionary purchase a minor happens to make. A mobile phone bought on credit is unlikely to be treated as a 'necessary' for an ordinary 16-year-old absent special facts (e.g. it being required for schooling), so the shopkeeper's Section 68 claim would likely also fail on these facts.

Step 4 — Conclusion: the agreement is void; Rahul owes nothing personally; and the shopkeeper very likely has no effective remedy at all, since the purchase is unlikely to qualify as a 'necessary.'